European Student Alliance

Lord Williams of Elvel: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the initiative of the London School of Economics and the Institut des Sciences Politiques student unions to set up a European Student Alliance; and, if so, how they propose to encourage it.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I declare an unremunerated interest as a visiting fellow of the London School of Economics.
	I welcome the initiative taken by the students of the LSE and Sciences Politiques in setting up this link. The Government support imaginative initiatives such as this which promote European awareness. The initiative supports the Bologna process, which focuses on closer co-operation across borders and greater mobility of students and academic staff, with the objective of creating a European higher education area by 2010. We work particularly closely with the French Ministry through a memorandum of understanding on educational co-operation.

Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Perhaps he could be a little more forthcoming on how the Government might help. For instance, student unions believe that the initiative should be extended to other universities within the European Union through this European Student Alliance. What practical measures can the Government take to ensure that this is fulfilled?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the noble Lord and, I hope, the House will know that there has been systematic encouragement through the National Unions of Students in Europe, which now operates as an umbrella organisation for 50 national unions of students in 37 countries. The members of this organisation represent more than 10 million students across Europe at its widest definition. We have encouraged this initiative both in the European Union at the Council of Europe and at UNESCO. We have encouraged almost all of the bilateral arrangements which have begun to emerge—for example, between the University of Kent and the University of Lille—and many other initiatives. We shall continue to do so.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I declare an interest as a staff member of the LSE who has been involved in improving links with Sciences Po. Is the Minister aware that this welcome initiative goes against a worrying trend in the number of British students going to study in continental universities? The ratio is not improving, with the gap between those coming from the continent to study in Britain and those going from Britain to study on the continent continuing to widen. Can the Minister tell the House how initiatives such as this might be better helped by the Government to encourage more British students to study in other European universities?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am aware that there is an imbalance between those going from the United Kingdom to study in European and other universities and the larger number of those coming into the United Kingdom. However, I hope the House will agree that the flow of people from other countries coming here to study—to form their friendships, their future trading partnerships and the other relationships which are so good for this country—is a trend we should not discourage. Having said that, we must apply ourselves to ensuring that all initiatives, including bilateral initiatives, are encouraged and given the best possible chance of succeeding. The Bologna process should encourage a significant number of people to go abroad for at least one year to improve their languages and their knowledge of other cultures. It is a process that we intend to drive forward.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I declare an interest as a governor and trustee of Bolton School. Can the Minister tell the House how it helps the initiative—or, indeed, international contact and business in general—to reduce the status of languages in the post-14 curriculum?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, to the Dispatch Box for the first time. We are delighted to see her in her place today. Having said that, I am afraid that we have reached the point at which I start to disagree. I shall do so in the best possible taste.
	I do not think that we are discouraging languages in the post-14 curriculum. Although this may go wider than the debate around this particular Question, I was able at an earlier Question Time to deal with the programme that the Government have initiated in post-school language education, not only in European languages but in Arabic and in the languages of the Far East, which are now absolutely critical to us. If we are candid about it, we have not had a great history of learning other people's languages. We must make sure that the programme that is in place is seen through into proper operation and that it succeeds.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most foreign students understand the acronym for the London School of Economics to be "Let's See Europe"—particularly American students, who come in large numbers to the LSE. In that spirit and the spirit of the entente cordiale, is it not entirely fitting that the students' union—in which I spent four happy years hanging around as an alumna of the LSE—is doing exactly what we needed to do in establishing links with Sciences Po? Will the Minister assure the House that he will give this his full backing?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, my very first Answer was one of real encouragement for this initiative, and I repeat it, if that is helpful. Given the international ranking of the London School of Economics, I hope that people do a little more than hang around it, whether enjoyably for four years or not. Its record in research achievement and in teaching quality places it, by most measures, in the very top echelon of international universities, on which it is much to be congratulated. I believe that every other institution that makes a bilateral arrangement of this kind and encourages these kinds of exchange will probably climb up that international league table as well.

Lord Renton: My Lords, can the Minister assure your Lordships that this European Student Alliance will be quite independent of the European Union? Indeed, it might do better if it were independent.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the initiative between the LSE and Sciences Politiques is, on this occasion, independent. The European Union has had no role in it. We should not look for dark corners of the development of international exchange among students. I have no intention of introducing five educational tests before we go ahead with any of these programmes.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, given the predilection of students worldwide to oppose the government of the day in their countries, might there not be a possibility that faster progress would be made on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, if the Government indicated that they disapproved of the event?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am very grateful for imaginative suggestions. However, I fear that it is too late, as we have shown in every way we can that we approve of this initiative. I believe that there is to be a large seminar or conference in London at the beginning of December for which we have indicated our fullest support. So I do not think I am in any position to resile from that now, even if it were to bring temporary relief to the students who heard about it.

vCJD

Baroness Neuberger: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Health Protection Agency will ensure that all medical and other health practitioners provide guidance and counselling to those young people who have received letters warning of the possible risk of vCJD contamination from plasma products in their National Health Service treatment.

Lord Warner: My Lords, as I indicated to the noble Baroness on 28 October in my reply to her supplementary question, the notification exercise by the Health Protection Agency is being delivered through the 150 clinicians who are treating people with haemophilia and bleeding disorders, and patients with primary immunodeficiency. These specialist clinicians are known to their patients and are best placed to advise and counsel them and to present this complex information about risk to them, irrespective of their age.

Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I should like to press this a little further. Given the suggestion that some blood tests may shortly become available, and given the implications of variant CJD for younger people, who seem to be more susceptible than older people, I wonder whether the clinicians alone are the right people to deal with this. Could the Government give guidance that counselling should be made available to those who want it, as they have done for people having infertility treatment? Very often, the clinicians do not have the time and sometimes not even the skills to provide the counselling that is needed. Is the Minister prepared to reconsider?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the process that has been put in place was agreed with all the patient interests. It was agreed that the information would be communicated by the HPA to the clinicians who would contact the patients, see them, explain matters to them and deal with any requests. There is no screening test available, although research is continuing in this area. We know that children born after 1996 will, in the main, not be involved, as they would not have received implicated products. The decision was taken in February 1998 to place all haemophiliacs under 16 on synthetic clotting products.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I was involved in this sort of situation in about 1998. Will the Minister please tell me where the plasma products originate? Are they from this country or another country?

Lord Warner: My Lords, this exercise arises from the fact, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State told another place in December, that a person who had died of variant CJD had received blood from a donor who had died of variant CJD. We are looking at the 176 batches of plasma products that may have had blood from those sources. We are tracing the people who may have received those plasma products, which would almost certainly have come from within this country.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the problems with this group of diseases is that the infective agent responsible for both sporadic and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is neither a bacterium nor a virus but a prion, a molecule of protein which cannot be destroyed by standard techniques of disinfection or sterilisation? Is he aware that at a recent meeting of the American Neurological Association, Stanley Prusiner, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on prions, reported that a blood test to identify the presence of these agents in blood is likely to be developed within the next two years?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I always bow to the noble Lord's scientific knowledge in this area. I am aware that there is optimism in this regard, and I know that the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation is looking at many of these issues.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how can BSE in cattle transfer to CJD in people? What dialogue and co-operation is there between Defra and the Department of Health?

Lord Warner: My Lords, this is an extremely joined-up government and the co-operation between Defra and the Department of Health is unparalleled. There is a rather long and complicated answer to the noble Baroness's question and I will write her a suitable letter.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a television programme this morning showed that CJD has been transmitted through a family by inheritance? Is that a new aspect to be concerned about or is it a fairly rare incidence?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I did not see the television this morning, but I will look into that particular case and write to the noble Baroness.

Earl Howe: My Lords, what research has been done to test the hypothesis that variant CJD can be transmitted through blood transfusions?

Lord Warner: My Lords, this issue is being looked at actively by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues. I am not sure of the detail of how far it has got in that research, but I will check and write to the noble Earl.

OSCE: December Ministerial Meeting

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress in strengthening European security they expect the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe ministerial meeting in December 2004 will achieve.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the ministerial council of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—the OSCE—in December will play a key role in setting the OSCE's agenda for the coming year. The main focus will be on conflict prevention and post-conflict reconstruction activities. We expect the ministerial council to discuss frozen conflicts including Moldova and Georgia and the OSCE's role following the EU's and NATO's enlargement, measures to combat terrorism and several other issues.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will she confirm that the Russians have threatened to block the 2005 budget of the OSCE unless the OSCE accepts that it has gone back and will not fulfil its Istanbul commitment of 1999 to withdraw its forces from Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Will she also confirm that the Russians have put the strongest pressure for the OSCE to drop its democracy promotion programmes in the CIS? If that is the case, does she not think that we are approaching the point where it would be better to allow the OSCE to become a non-functioning organisation than simply to allow Russia to veto any effective operation of an organisation that is supposed to be about improving security and co-operation across the whole of Europe and Eurasia?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that we see no prospect of consensus on a declaration at this forthcoming ministerial council if it fails to reaffirm the Istanbul commitments. We are very clear about that and we have made that known to our participating colleagues in the OSCE, including our Russian friends.
	We also believe that it is important to engage with Russia in the OSCE without sacrificing the human dimension. The dogged, consistent and progressive work that the OSCE does on human rights is very close to our hearts.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is quite hard to find out what this 55-nation organisation is getting up to in the many areas in which it is involved? I was glad to hear her mention the agenda for the ministerial meeting. Is she aware that on the Internet the agenda is not yet available or available only in Bulgarian? It is difficult to find out what our role will be.
	Following the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will she define a little more precisely what our representatives who will go to this ministerial meeting in Sofia will aim for? What is their objective, what are our purposes and what do we hope to gain from this meeting?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that the official language for the OSCE is not Bulgarian. The agenda is probably in Bulgarian on the Internet because the present chair of the OSCE is the Bulgarian Foreign Minister—it is a rotating chair. However, I agree that there should be as much transparency as possible. This is a very positive organisation. As the noble Lord said, 55 states worldwide participate in the OSCE. It does a tremendous amount of work on monitoring border disputes and monitoring elections. Many noble Lords present have been election monitors through its activity.
	Our aims for this conference are to ensure that the OSCE improves and enhances its role following EU and NATO enlargement, that it ensures that there are efficient measures to combat terrorism and proper strategies to combat new security threats as well as considering all the relevant economic and environmental matters that participating colleagues wish to put on the agenda.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is there any European country that is not a member of this organisation?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord a list of the 55 countries. I think that all European Union members are members of the OSCE and the work of both organisations overlaps and complements each other.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the OSCE also does extremely good work in training lawyers, for instance, in Kosovo and Bosnia so that justice and the rule of law can take root there?

Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords; absolutely. The human rights report sets out very clearly some of the work referred to by my noble friend.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her extremely robust answers. In view of those, how do the British Government see the future of OSCE observation missions about which the Russians have also been rather obstructive? Does she see these missions as playing a larger role in these frozen conflict areas?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we want to ensure that the observation missions play their full role in the frozen conflict areas. There is not a package of solutions, as the noble Lord knows, for all these different frozen conflicts that go back many years. However, it is very important that all the participating OSCE countries, including our Russian friends, sign up to the efficient mechanisms to ensure that these frozen conflicts are resolved.

Macedonia

Lord St John of Bletso: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there are a sufficient number of peace-keeping forces in Macedonia; and, if not, what plans they have for future British troop deployment.

Lord Bach: My Lords, there are no international peace-keeping forces in Macedonia. The last international military presence was a small EU-led mission "Operation Concordia". It withdrew on 15 December 2003. There is currently an EU police mission in Macedonia—EUPOL Proxima—whose role it is to promote the development of an efficient and professional police service by mentoring, monitoring and advising the Macedonian police. There are no plans for future British troop deployment to Macedonia.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Given the current instability in the Government of Macedonia—the fact that today its parliament is considering the resignation of the Prime Minister, Mr Kostov—and given the increase in inter-communal tensions following the recent failed referendum and the high risk of a return to violence in Macedonia, do Her Majesty's Government now consider that a more proactive approach to conflict resolution is necessary in that country?

Lord Bach: No, my Lords, we do not. The security situation in Macedonia is calm. We continue to monitor it very carefully and we know, of course, of the Prime Minister's resignation on 15 November. We do not expect that decision to affect stability: it is very much an internal political matter. We are delighted by the result of the referendum because it means that decentralisation, which was an essential element of the Ohrid agreement of 2001, can move forward. Although we accept that the security situation has to be monitored carefully, we are not of the view that the situation is such that we need to consider any other moves.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, what is the Government's position on Macedonia's aspirations to join NATO in 2006?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we support the application and desire of Macedonia to join NATO, and we look forward to its eventual membership. However, it needs of course to meet the necessary conditions, which, at the risk of repeating myself, is the conclusion of the Ohrid agreement. As the noble Lord knows better than I, Macedonia is a member of the Partnership for Peace, has a membership action plan and is making good progress in defence reform. Our desire is that Macedonia should eventually join NATO.

Lord Roper: My Lords, in view of the delicate political situation in Macedonia, does the Minister agree that the work of the EU mission in police training is of very great importance? Will he ensure that it is monitored very carefully to see whether there are ways in which it could, if necessary, be increased?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Lord. That police mission has been extremely successful. It has approximately 160 personnel, of whom six are British. It supports the development of an efficient and professional police service, promotes European standards of policing and has made good progress in its first year. Its extension for a further year was requested by the former Prime Minister, Mr Kostov.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, has Britain any special obligation to maintain peace in Macedonia, or is the special obligation on the EU?

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course, we have a national obligation and responsibility to ensure as best we can that in this region of Europe, where there have been so many difficulties over the past 10 years or so, there is a move to democracy and peace. The record of Macedonia in that regard is a good one. The matter is extremely relevant to the European Union as well as NATO.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Macedonia represents a unique example of soldiers becoming successfully involved in humanitarian work, specifically emergency relief for refugees? Does he have other examples of British forces becoming so involved? Have guidelines been issued to avoid situations, such as occur in Afghanistan, of confusion between military and humanitarian work?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl is referring to events in August 2001, when, under the auspices of NATO, Operation Central Harvest was launched under British lead, with 3,500 troops. They managed to do what they were invited to do, which was to disarm ethnic groups and destroy weapons. That was followed by two further NATO operations; indeed, they were extremely successful, and we played a central part in them. I do not need to remind the House how successful we are as a country through our Armed Forces in peace-keeping operations, but that is not what is required in Macedonia at the moment.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I shall try to keep the House as informed as I can about what is happening today, although it is never completely clear. I can make one thing absolutely clear: after the Civil Contingencies Bill, we shall go straight to the Pensions Bill. Thereafter it is less predictable, because, as ever, we shall be waiting to see what happens in the Commons on various things. Of course, it depends on what we do on those two Bills.
	The bad news is that the rest of the day will be unpredictable. There may well be adjournments, which many noble Lords are familiar with from previous occasions, while we await messages from the Commons. But the good news is that it has to finish today.

Civil Contingencies Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND REASONS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 77, the Bill as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

7 Clause 2, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, make provision— (a) requiring those authorities which control ports, airports or frontiers as well as local authorities to install special equipment to monitor the contents of lorries, containers or other objects for suspicious contents or persons; (b) requiring those authorities which control ports, airports or frontiers as well as local authorities to install special equipment designed to monitor persons, ships, other conveyances or other objects for radioactive material; and (c) requiring local authorities and other public bodies to obtain specific static or mobile equipment which is designed to identify the presence of chemical material or biological organisms or radioactive substances which might be used in a terrorist attack."
	7A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it involves a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reasons, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 7A.
	I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the energy, passion and persistence with which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has probed and pushed the Government on our counter-terrorism framework, and the state and condition of the United Kingdom's preparedness for dealing with terrorist attacks.
	Before I take the House through the detail of our reasons for asking the House not to insist on this amendment I should make it clear that the Government entirely support the noble Lord's view that the appropriate powers should be available to those who need them to deal with emergencies. That is why the Government have been proactive in that area since 1997. For example, since that time, we have put in place the Terrorism Act 2000, the Animal Health Act 2002 with its important bearing on this area of concern, the Anti- terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.
	This is not a partisan point. Noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber will appreciate that governments of every complexion have always made sensible legislative provisions of this kind. But these provisions must be the right ones; they must be properly thought through and necessary. That is why we must continue to resist Amendment No. 7.
	Our argument is that the new powers are unnecessary. Amendment No. 7 relates to the Government's powers to require ports, airports and local authorities to purchase equipment designed to identify the presence of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material, and deploy this at ports and airports. As we demonstrated with the amendments to this Bill relating to anti-terrorism traffic regulation orders, the Government are resolved to take the powers that they need to combat terrorism. However, the Government already have the powers that your Lordships' House has sought to confer on it with Amendment No. 7. It is perhaps worth running through these again for the benefit of noble Lords.
	Under the Airports Act 1986, the Secretary of State may give directions to the operators of airports in the interests of national security. The Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 gives the Government a wide-ranging power to require port authorities to undertake screening and monitoring. Detailed requirements relating to maritime security have been adopted at international level, in particular the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and community level, in particular Regulation 725/2004 on enhancing ship and port facility security. These include provisions relating to security assessments for port facilities, provision of information and port facility plans. These provisions are enforced under the Ship and Port Facility (Security) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1495). Under these regulations, ships and port facilities can be inspected for the purpose of ensuring that they comply with government security requirements. In addition, as I reminded the House the other day, under Clause 5 of this Bill, an order could be made requiring local authorities, or any other category 1 responder, to perform their functions in a particular way. This could include the purchase and deployment of equipment as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, suggests.
	The noble Lord's primary concern in tabling this amendment was to ensure that the Government have clear and unambiguous powers to take effective action to protect the public against the scourge of terrorism. In a sense, the noble Lord has achieved this end through the description of our powers that I have just put on the record. Nobody in your Lordships' House or in another place has seriously questioned the adequacy of those powers. Having achieved that objective on Report, I and my noble friend Lady Scotland were more than a little surprised when the noble Lord decided to press his amendment.
	The powers that this amendment confers on the Government are unnecessary and redundant. However, the implications of accepting the amendment would be far more damaging. These new provisions could undermine the robust procedural safeguards set out in the existing powers. Furthermore, existing legislation sets out in much more detail the scope of the powers and the procedures to be followed when they are used. If left on the statute book, the provisions of your Lordships' amendment would cause significant confusion.
	Since the passing of the original amendment, we have looked into this matter in considerable detail. I hope to illustrate my point by using the example of the Airports Act 1986, which, as I am sure we will all appreciate, was passed while the noble, Lord Jopling, was a senior member of the government.
	As I said a moment ago, Section 30 of the Airports Act enables the Secretary of State to give a direction to an airport operator when necessary or expedient in the interest of national security. Additionally, it gives a clear indication of the kind of thing that can be done under the power by specifying that a direction may be made to individual port operators or to operators generally, and that the direction may be of a general character or require operators to do, or not to do, particular things, perhaps with regard to a targeted or risk-based approach.
	Provision is also made for parliamentary scrutiny of the direction. Subsection (6) provides that the direction must be laid before each House unless the Secretary of State is of the opinion that disclosure of the direction would be contrary to the interests of national security, international relations or the commercial interests of any person. Subsection (7) makes provision enabling the Secretary of State to indicate that the direction should not be disclosed where disclosure of the direction would be contrary to the interests of national security, international relations or commercial interests. Finally, the provision also includes procedural safeguards on the use of the power. Subsection (9) provides that the Secretary of State must consult the person to whom he proposes to give a direction before issuing that direction.
	None of those supplementary details and safeguards is included in the amendment. I am sure that noble Lords do not intend to cause confusion, or for that matter hinder the Government's preparations in this area, but that would be the practical effect of this amendment.
	So for those reasons we do not believe that the amendment makes sense; and that is why the Government seek to overturn it. We have the powers. Safeguards were built into the powers when they were designed, but they are not present in the amendment. We do not want to have legislative confusion and we do not believe in using and applying redundant legislation. Essentially, I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, "It is very kind of you to try to give these additional powers and authorities to us, but, frankly, we do not need them. They would cause confusion and they would undermine the impact of legislation that previous governments, including your own, put in place. Those powers and authorities were considered robust at the time and we believe that they are robust now. We believe that they satisfy the purpose for which they were designed". That is the Government's position on these matters.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 7A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am very interested in the Minister's explanation. If these powers exist, I wonder whether it would be pressing everyone's patience too far to ask the Minister what use the Government have made of them. I would not expect an exhaustive list. It is one thing to have the powers; whether they are being used is an entirely different thing. The question of the Government's use of the powers, rather than the existence of the powers, is what concerns my noble friend and should concern the House.

Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for his generous comment about my interest in these matters. I think that I explained on Report why I was not able to be present in your Lordship's House for Third Reading. I was at a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where I am special rapporteur on matters of protection of the civilian population. I was dealing with exactly the same matters at that assembly over the weekend.
	I do not apologise for having pressed these matters because I believe they are vital. I sincerely hope that the Minister is correct when he says that these powers already exist. I am not totally convinced that the proposed powers would create confusion. I shall continue to monitor whether he is correct—I hope that he is—that these powers already exist and that further powers are unnecessary.
	The Minister spoke about the confusion that these complementary powers might create in relation to the existing ones. He says that the Government have been re-examining those powers. If such a re-examination is all that I have achieved, I think that these debates have been very much worth while. I am delighted that the principal point of the amendment has been endorsed by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. As the Minister will know, that point was very much part of what I have been speaking about during the Bill's progress.
	If the Government have the powers, the question is, as my noble friend said, whether they are using them adequately. I know that there are far too many gaps in the equipment that is available and that could help to protect this country and its citizens from a dreadful terrorist attack. As I believe I have said twice before to your Lordships, I do not intend to enumerate and describe those risks; that would be grossly irresponsible. I shall simply continue to say that there are far too many gaps in this country through which terrorists could bring very unpleasant material. There are far too many gaps in our ability to identify after the event an attack of, let us say, nerve gas or biological matter.
	I am afraid that I shall continue to trouble your Lordships on these matters over the months and years ahead in order to ensure that these powers which the Government claim to have are adequate and are being used to fill all those gaps. As I have said, if a dreadful terrorist incident occurred in this country, I believe that the Government would be torn limb from limb because of the inadequacy of our preparation.
	On that rather gloomy note, I am grateful to the Minister for helpfully explaining at some length the powers that exist. I think that we have to accept his recommendation on these matters.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised these matters at an earlier stage of the Bill. I have listened with care to what the Minister has said, and I of course concur with my noble friend Lord Jopling about our reaction based on what the Minister has said. However, I think that the virtue in raising it has been consummated by the quality of information which has arisen out of it.
	In the context of what the Minister said and why we are reassured, I should say that when the Baltic Exchange was blown up in the City of London, there was very great fear in the City that, were there to be a further massive explosion of that sort, there was a high degree of hazard that international banks would leave the City. The ring of steel, which the Corporation of London introduced to prevent explosives being brought in in trucks, could be put in place by the Corporation of London only under quite irrelevant legislation concerning traffic experiments. Of course, legislation can be introduced very quickly, but in that instance the Corporation of London had to use what I would call extremely exotic legislation in order to achieve the objective that we were discussing. It is genuinely reassuring to hear the Minister say that we are covered in that regard.
	However, I say to the Minister in a very quiet voice that the amulet of terrorist legislation is not always totally secure. I ask him to cast his mind back to the consolidation of terrorist legislation which occurred when Mr Jack Straw was Home Secretary when it was discovered by chance, about 18 months after the consolidation had gone through, that in the process of the consolidation, provisions which had been contained in earlier legislation had been omitted from the subsequent Bill. Consequently, had any terrorist committed the relevant offence during that 18-month period, there would have been no basis on which to arraign him. The measure had been scrutinised by both Houses of Parliament. Eternal vigilance of legislation is extremely important.
	I refer to a point that is not mentioned in the amendment brought forward by my noble friend Lord Jopling but which seems to me to be a matter for a future agenda. I seek the same kind of answer that we have had from the Minister on this occasion regarding whether monitoring equipment can be used to detect non-terrorist but highly adverse exotic insects and diseases which enter this country from tropical countries in containers due to global warming. I hope that we will be able to return to this issue hereafter. I hope that my noble friend Lord Jopling, with his background in agriculture and forestry, will not disapprove of my having added that dimension.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as I had my name to the amendment which is now being discarded, I should say that I accept my noble friend's acceptance of the Minister's assurances. I detain your Lordships for a moment only to make a comment that I think ought to be made regarding the reason which the Commons gave for rejecting the amendment. The Commons says that it would constitute a charge on public funds. That is not the case because the measure is permissive. It would allow regulations to be made. The charge would be made at the discretion of the Government, as it should be. I am glad that we have had this debate and that the Government have offered other reasons for rejecting this amendment rather than the silence which normally accompanies that particular reason.

Lord Garden: My Lords, we on these Benches also supported the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, as in this area in particular things are changing rapidly in terms of the available technology. It is important that everyone is kept up to date and aware of what is possible. The debate has been useful in that respect. I totally support what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, just said. As the Government claim that all this is already contained in legislation, obviously no extra charge would be involved as the Government would implement these provisions anyway. Be that as it may, I hope that we have now pushed this matter further up the agenda of all those involved in taking the necessary actions. The concern is that, by not having the measure in the Bill, 10 years on things will change and certain provisions will not be available. That is part of the reason why it is so important to consider some form of review process. However, I accept that the Government have this matter high on their agenda at the moment.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Jopling on his tenacity on the matter. This has been a very useful debate. I hope that the Government will consider with care the comments that have been made today regarding the extreme importance of this issue, notwithstanding the fact that we have failed to persuade them to include the measure in the Bill. In years to come we may come to regret that. I hope that will not be the case.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the exchanges that have taken place on this amendment. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Although Ministers may become irritated when they consider that they have not been listened to when they have repeated a point on several occasions, I consider that this debate has had the virtue of encouraging the Government to give further thought to powers that were put in place by a Conservative government over a period of 10 years. Clearly, that administration was mindful of what might happen in the future and, as it were, "future proofed" legislative measures that it took for a range of reasons. It was wise to do so. That is why at the outset I said that this was not a politically partisan issue. It should not be because the overriding raison d'être for this kind of debate should be to protect the public and act fundamentally in the public interest. This debate has usefully focused on that purpose.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned public funds. I am advised that the reason is appropriate as the amendment imposes a potential charge on public funds. However, as I have explained in detail, the debate has enabled us to give further chapter and verse on why the amendment is unnecessary.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, raised an important point regarding the way in which these powers have been used in the past. I am not in a position to give him precise details on that but as part of our resilience programme—we have taken decisive action at ports and airports as part of that programme—we have put in place Programme Cyclamen, which is designed to screen for the illicit movement of radioactive materials by traffic entering the UK by air, sea and Channel Tunnel. That programme is scheduled for completion in March 2007. The programme will screen container and road freight, post and fast parcels, vehicles and passengers, and will use a combination of fixed and mobile detection units—some of the equipment which is envisaged in the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.
	There is a very clear and determined political will to develop and enhance the United Kingdom's counter-terrorism and resilience capacity. We have invested heavily in that. In the past I have given detailed figures on that. I do not intend to repeat that detail today but, of course, we shall want to keep the House as up to date as we can on the development of those measures, as is appropriate and reasonable without giving away too much detail that might compromise the way in which operations work.
	This has been a useful debate. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on the ring of steel. He is right that there have been occasions in the past when perhaps the available powers were not as precise as governments would wish. In part for that reason the Government brought forward the anti-terrorism traffic regulation powers in this Bill to finesse those powers and ensure that they are appropriate for the time in which we operate. The noble Lord made some wise comments. It is not possible to envisage every set of circumstances. We must take legislative opportunities when they arise to fine tune and ensure that we can put in place adequate measures to protect the public and fulfil a duty of protection which all governments of all political persuasions have to the public.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. This has been a useful series of debates. I hope that we can continue our discussion in this policy field in the spirit of amity and co-operation that we have achieved when discussing this matter.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS

37 Clause 22, page 15, line 6, leave out from "provision" to "for" in line 7
	38 Page 15, line 9, leave out from "provision" to "for" in line 10
	43 Clause 23, page 16, line 32, leave out from "only" to end of line 33
	44 Page 16, line 34, leave out "that the provision is"
	45 Page 16, line 37, leave out "that the effect of the provision is"
	The Commons disagree to Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 43, 44 and 45 but propose the following amendments in lieu:
	Page 14, line 15, at end insert "appropriate"
	45B Page 15, line 7, leave out "thinks is" and insert "is satisfied is appropriate"
	45C Page 15, line 10, leave out "thinks is" and insert "is satisfied is appropriate"
	45D Page 16, line 33, leave out "thinks" and insert "is satisfied"
	45E Page 16, line 34, after "is" insert "appropriate"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 43, 44 and 45 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A to 45E in lieu thereof.
	The Government have studied very carefully the batch of amendments accepted by noble Lords on Report which related to the state of mind that a decision-maker must have before taking action under the Bill. The Bill originally required the decision-maker to "think" that an urgent direction was needed under Part 1, or that a provision of the emergency regulations was in due proportion to the emergency. Concerns were raised about that approach both in this House and in another place.
	Noble Lords replaced "thinks" in each case with an objective test. In other words, the urgent direction must "be needed" and the provision of urgent directions or emergency regulations must be in due proportion. We have accepted the merit of those amendments in relation to the power to issue directions under Part 1. We have also accepted in principle the amendments in relation to Clause 25, which relates to the consultation of the Council on Tribunals where there is a proposal to establish a tribunal using emergency powers. However, to ensure that the drafting is effective, the Government moved a number of other amendments in another place.
	In each such case, the decision-maker will be making a judgment of fact or near fact. Is there an urgent need to issue a direction? Is there insufficient time to consult the Council on Tribunals? We accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that in such cases an objective approach is appropriate, and are grateful for his assistance—dare I say persistence?—on that important point.
	I turn to the amendments to Clauses 22 and 23, which relate to the kind of provision which can be included in emergency regulations. We do not feel able to accept the amendments. Inevitably, deciding what kind of provision to include in emergency regulations will be a question of judgment. Whether or not the correct response to an outbreak of an infectious disease, for example, is to impose quarantine or restrict public gatherings is not a question of fact. We think it appropriate for the Bill to recognise that those are judgment calls and to indicate clearly who is responsible for making them.
	We can and should raise the test in those cases, however. We have therefore developed an alternative amendment, which raises the threshold of the test from "thinks" to "is satisfied". That will require the maker of regulations not just to think that the provisions of regulations are appropriate, but to be satisfied or pretty sure that they are.
	There was a suggestion in another place that the decision-maker should be required to be satisfied "on reasonable grounds". As we discussed at various stages in this House, it is not necessary or appropriate to provide expressly that a Minister or other public body act "reasonably". After all, the requirement to act reasonably is a fundamental element of public law and we should not seek to duplicate it by including unnecessary language in the Bill.
	I am very grateful to noble Lords for their assistance in improving the quality of the drafting of the Bill, and I urge the House to accept the compromise package in relation to Clauses 22 and 23.
	Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 37, 38, 43, 44 and 45 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 45A to 45E in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Elton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his gratitude and his acceptance of our proposal on Part 1. On Part 2, I would have been happy had we dismissed the subjective element altogether, but I accept that what is proposed is a great deal tighter. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Lucas on Report so, on his behalf as well as my own, I am grateful. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, were here, I do not doubt that the discussion would continue a little longer, but, briefly, I accept with thanks what the Government have done.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I would like to continue the discussion just a little longer. I express my gratitude to the Government for taking on board my point about "thinking" and someone's purpose, which I made, perhaps to the point of being wearisome, at early stages of debate. The provision totally satisfies me. It improves the Bill, if I may say so modestly, and I am grateful to have a listening government.
	I would like to resolve two misconceptions about the other matter. On Report, there was an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to which I added my name. In the debate, I announced that I had undergone a "Damascus road" conversion and reached an opposite conclusion. Language that I used on that occasion gave rise to the idea that I had been persuaded to that conclusion by my noble friend Lady Scotland. She is indeed a very persuasive character, but on that occasion I reached the conclusion totally unaided. It would be unfair to blame her for the aberrations of my mental processes.
	The other possible misconception is the reason that I gave for my conversion. I was troubled that, if the criterion of vires was objective, the courts might have to try a question of complicated fact when everyone was reacting to an emergency. In consequence, the court might be subjected to a long hearing and a large amount of evidence, evidence complicated by the fact that it might have security implications.
	I was reversed on appeal by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who gave as his reason that the court could defer dealing with the matter until after the emergency had passed and we had entered a period of tranquillity. I hope that I have not misrepresented him; that was what I understood him to say. If that were the case, it would be a little worrying for someone whose house was in danger of being pulled down to be told that the court would resolve at a later stage, after the event had taken place, whether there had ever been vires to do it. To that extent, with the great respect and deference that I always pay to him, I take issue with that.
	Since then, another point has been urged on me, and I want to spend a moment explaining why I would still take that view. If a Minister had to decide a question of objective fact before exercising powers, he might just get it wrong. Governments have been known to act on a belief of fact that subsequently turned out to be a misconception. If that were to happen, it would be held that he had acted ultra vires. No Minister wants to act ultra vires. Questions of compensation might arise, although I doubt it because governments would normally ensure that citizens were compensated anyway. That takes us back to the balance that we discussed earlier on the Bill.
	What is important in an emergency is that a Minister should act quickly and decisively. The provision could have created a culture in which Ministers acted slowly and hesitantly, which might be undesirable. For those reasons, too, I go along with the position that the Government have taken in another place. I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience in allowing me to make those explanations; in the United Nations, it is called an explanation of vote.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank my noble friends who worked with us throughout all stages of the Bill to debate this important issue, and thank noble Lords all around the House. I thank the Government for listening to our many debates on the issue, with different suggestions from noble Lords to try to improve the wording of the Bill. It is interesting to note that, although we often feel a little shy of extending our debates, our honourable friends in another place spent a mere three hours yesterday debating all the amendments made by noble Lords. We, at this end, have such an important role to play. Our debate this morning and the comments and contributions that noble Lords have made on this issue have been extremely valuable. So perhaps we shall not feel so shy about the time we take up.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for their comments on this package of amendments. I think that we have now struck the right balance. I listened with great care to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. It was almost as if he had read my brief. I can assure your Lordships that he has not done so, but many of the points—

Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister sure that he did not leave the brief lying on the road to Damascus?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall not be tempted, other than to say that some conversions are beneficial to all. Perhaps this one has been most beneficial. We have reached a happy stage of agreement on this matter, for which I am grateful. I am grateful for the support of the House in reaching that point.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

47 Clause 25, page 18, line 2, leave out "he thinks it" and insert "this is"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu— Page 17, line 33, leave out "he thinks it" 47B Page 18, line 2, leave out "he thinks it"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 47A and 47B in lieu thereof. I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 37.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 47A and 47B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

49 Clause 34, page 21, line 32, after "Act" insert ", except for the provisions of Part 2"
	The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason— Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 49A.
	The idea of sunsetting Part 2 of the Bill, originally raised by the Joint Committee that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny, was discussed in detail on Report, at Third Reading and in another place. The Government have made it clear that they consider the arguments against a generic sunsetting provision for Part 2 of the Bill to be compelling both in terms of logic and precedence.
	That view will not change for three key reasons. First, there is no logic in the argument that generic provision to deal with emergencies will cease to be needed. Secondly, the exercise of the powers under Part 2 is already subject to sunsetting, but after 30 days rather than a year. Thirdly, the Government already provide Parliament with regular opportunities to debate civil contingencies and the operation of legislation in this area.
	Sunsetting legislation is appropriate where the powers it contains are expected no longer to be needed after a certain period or where that Act's existence should be reviewed by Parliament. The Bill does not meet either of those criteria. Time-limiting the Bill is clearly not appropriate; no one believes that emergencies will stop happening in three years' time. If Part 2 of the Bill were to be repealed, something else would simply have to be put in its place. This, as has been made clear in debate, is not the principal concern behind the original amendment. The issue is parliamentary review of the use of Part 2 of the Bill.
	The purpose of review by Parliament on a triennial basis, it is suggested, is that, given the nature of the powers, Parliament should assess whether it is appropriate for them to continue to exist, in light of the way in which they have been exercised. While the Government understand the thinking behind that approach they do not believe it to be appropriate. If Part 2 of the Bill itself implemented matters such as those listed at Clause 22, if the Bill itself requisitioned property or prohibited the movement of persons or prohibited assemblies, then I would agree entirely that regular reviews would be appropriate. But that, as noble Lords know, is not the case. As has been made clear during earlier debates, it is the regulations that may be made under the Bill that will contain the powers needed to deal with the emergency. Part 2 of the Bill itself affects no one.
	Any suggestion that the regulations will not receive very close and detailed scrutiny is simply unfounded. The Government have made very clear that any regulations made under Part 2 must be debated and approved by both Houses. Uniquely, Parliament has the power to amend the regulations, further strengthening the robustness of the scrutiny process. It should be remembered, too, that emergency regulations contain their own sunset clause—they lapse 30 days after they are made. It is arguable that this is one of the most aggressive sunset clauses to be found in any legislation on the statute book. Fresh parliamentary approval is then required to make any further regulations, should it still be necessary, right and proportionate to do so.
	The Government make regular parliamentary Statements about civil contingencies issues. For example, the Home Secretary issued a Written Ministerial Statement on 25 February setting out much of the work under way. There are also regular debates under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Noble Lords are free to ask questions on all aspects of civil protection activity.
	It should be kept in mind that emergency powers are for dealing with only the most serious emergencies. It seems unthinkable that any emergency they are used in connection with will not be debated in full while it is happening and that the Government's handling of it, including the use of emergency powers, will not be subject to detailed review after the event. Because of that, the amendment would be nugatory.
	I believe that there is a compelling argument that it is the regulations themselves that should and will receive very close and detailed scrutiny and review. I do not consider that the Bill, which, of itself, confers no powers on a day-to-day basis and is simply a mechanism for making temporary legislation, needs to be subject to review.
	Turning to the amendments originally proposed by this House, I would therefore question the utility of review every three years, given that Part 2 is a last resort option for dealing with only the most serious emergencies where existing legislation proves insufficient. It is not intended for regular use. It is worth noting that there was a 29-year gap between the use of the powers under the current legislation. It simply would not have been necessary or sensible to review the 1920 Act every three years during that period. In most cases, the Act would not have been used at all in the preceding three years and quite likely not for a good many years before that. The same applies to this Bill. It is a last resort option to be used very rarely, one hopes never, and it would be of limited utility to review it every three years as enabling legislation that had not been used during that period. This is in contrast to legislation such as the Terrorism Act and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, where a review mechanism is appropriate, because the powers they contain were intended to be used on a continuing basis and not subject to parliamentary scrutiny when exercised.
	In summary, the Government cannot agree to these amendments. We are replacing a very long-standing generic framework that is entirely unsuitable for sunsetting and effective arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny are already set out in the Bill in relation to the regulations made under it.
	I should turn now to Amendments Nos. 49B and 50B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I fear that I am going to have to disappoint the House on these amendments too. We cannot accept them and will resist them. The Government consider the arguments against sunsetting to be compelling, both in terms of logic and precedence, whether that may be either before or after the use of emergency powers under Part 2 of the Bill.
	At the risk of repeating myself, I must stress that emergency powers contain significant safeguards. In other words, they can be used only when they are necessary, proportionate and right for the purposes of dealing with an effect or an aspect of the emergency. Emergency powers are subject to the affirmative procedure and both Houses have the unique opportunity to amend the regulations laid before them. Emergency regulations themselves are sunsetted after a maximum of 30 days, and parliamentary assent is needed for any new set of regulations made after that.
	This procedure offers the ability to scrutinise and limit the use of emergency powers. Sunsetting the whole of Part 2 is simply not the right way to scrutinise the powers. This must be the right approach. It provides the appropriate level of scrutiny without being overly mechanistic and introducing arbitrary time limits on what is a longstanding mechanism for acting with the approval of Parliament.
	It also does not seem apt for Part 2 of the Bill automatically to fall one year after emergency powers established under it have been made. I suggest that that is an arbitrary timescale which does not fit with the fact that this country will still require the ability to make such regulations, if necessary, at that time or as the last resort. I do not think that anyone doubts that we would still require this part of the Bill one year later or that its disappearance from the statute book would leave a gap in our capabilities which we would simply have to fill with a replacement of a similar nature. Indeed, its use will doubtless only reinforce the case for its continuing existence. If it works, that will be all to the good. If it does not work—unlikely as that seems, given the effective modernisation that we are now undertaking—the Government will not wish to wait a year before overhauling the provisions.
	In summary, while I appreciate the tenacity of the noble Baroness in pursuing this issue at each turn and finding a different and more suitable—and, in this case, more subtle—variation on the argument, we run into further difficulties. I believe that logic and practical experience of the way in which emergencies play out during both the response and the review phases lend weight to the Government's position. I urge the noble Baroness not to pursue her amendments.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 49A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Buscombe: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 49A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 49B in lieu thereof":
	49B Page 21, line 33, at end insert "subject to the provisions of subsections (2A) and (2B) below"

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49B, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 50. With these amendments, I am urging the Government once again to consider the importance of inserting into the Bill a safeguard that would allow your Lordships and honourable Members in another place to review the use of the emergency powers under Part 2.
	I listened with care to what the Minister said at Third Reading and today in response to my amendment proposing a sunset clause. In addition, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote to me setting out the reasons why such a clause was not necessary or appropriate. She said:
	"It is the Government's view that sunsetting legislation is appropriate where the powers it contains are expected to no longer be needed after a certain length of time or where their application should be reviewed by Parliament".
	With some sadness, we agree with the Government. This kind of legislation will most probably be needed for some time to come so that we can respond to emergencies as yet unforeseen. In other words, we accept that this legislation may have a long shelf life. We also accept that the powers under Part 2 may not be used for some time to come.
	However, in the event that the powers are triggered by a threat of an emergency or an actual emergency—some unprecedented act—we believe it is important that we in Parliament have the opportunity to review the use of those extraordinarily wide powers and to debate whether they have been used appropriately. The effect of Amendments Nos. 49B and 50 would be that, in the event that the powers in Part 2 were triggered, Parliament would, within one year of their use, have to debate and decide whether or not that use had been appropriate.
	In responding to what the Minister said today, we also want to be sure that the powers are used only when necessary and proportionate. We accept that, under the provisions of the Bill, the regulations themselves are sunsetted after 30 days. However, the power to invoke emergency powers under Clause 20 is not currently sunsetted.
	Perhaps I may give an example of where we think this could come into play. Let us suppose that the government of the day—not necessarily this Government—decided that they wanted to extend the life of Parliament for political reasons. They could dress that up by saying, "We must have a state of emergency and trigger these emergency powers because there is an outbreak", for example, "of foot and mouth"—an outbreak that, in fact, would not necessarily require a state of emergency or the extension of the life of the Parliament. But, for some reason, the government might be unpopular and so choose, under Clause 22(3)(j), to use the powers to extend the life of Parliament, disapplying the various Acts that ensure that Parliament continues to sit and continues to be constituted. That is just one practical example of why we believe it to be hugely important to have these regulations.
	Perhaps I may give another example using the analogy of the car. If you purchase a car and then keep it in the garage, you can leave it be. But if you drive it, it should be serviced. With this approach, we are saying that if the powers are used, let us in Parliament have the opportunity within one year of the use of those powers to pause, reflect and debate whether the extraordinarily wide powers have been used in a way that is proportionate and necessary. I believe that our amendments are common sense and pragmatic.
	In her letter to me dated 15 November, the Minister wrote:
	"Where the nature of the powers is such that it is appropriate to enable Parliament to assess whether it is appropriate for these powers to continue, in the light of the ways in which the powers have been exercised, a sunset clause may also be appropriate. The Government does not believe that the Civil Contingencies Bill falls into this category of legislation".
	I find that statement extraordinary. If the use of the emergency powers contained in the Bill does not in any event deserve scrutiny, then I cannot think what does. Indeed, it may be that, following their use, Parliament will decide that the provisions are in some way defective, such that they have hindered a satisfactory response to an emergency. If that is the case, our amendment would give Parliament a clear opportunity to seek to put that right by amending the provisions accordingly.
	I hope that the Government have given serious consideration to this amendment, although I fear that they have not. It is worth stressing that we are not proposing to require a review of civil contingency planning; we are simply urging the Government to ensure that proper safeguards are placed in the Bill—safeguards that would go some way to allay the fears of noble Lords and many beyond your Lordships' House who genuinely believe, as we do, that these powers are extraordinarily wide. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 49A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 49B in lieu thereof".—(Baroness Buscombe.)

Lord McNally: My Lords, not for the first time during the passage of the Bill, I find myself torn between two tenacious and persuasive ladies—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, being in lieu of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, today. The balance of the arguments is very fine, and my approach to this matter is not that of a lawyer but that of a jobbing politician.
	Having listened to the debate as it has unfolded, Ministers have constantly emphasised their good will, their good intention and their awesome responsibility in preparing such emergency legislation. Parallel to that, all sides of the House have been concerned that the powers contained in the Bill, if ever used, are truly awesome. Over the past six or seven years, one of my concerns has been that, through a ratchet effect, little changes have been made to legislation that nibble away at civil liberties. Every time such provisions are put forward with the purest of motives. My real worry is that we suddenly find ourselves in a less liberal society than the one we thought we were defending.
	While accepting that this legislation will sit safely on the shelf and gather dust, as a jobbing politician I am not that confident that the opportunities to debate orders, and so on, will focus minds in the same way as the proposals that we have tried to put forward in various ways, because of the nature of the legislation and the powers that it contains.
	I do not want this legislation just to sit on the shelf and gather dust. I want an opportunity to see whether we have it right: right in terms of what the Government are doing to ensure it is in working order and right in terms of whether the powers in it are commensurate with the threats that we face. Let us be optimistic. There may be a period when we are not under such an imminent threat of terrorism and it may be that a future Parliament would want to look at whether all the powers are appropriate to a different age, or there may be changes in the technologies or the nature of a threat.
	I wish that the Government had come up with a thought on this point. I still believe that it should not just be left on the shelf in this way. I really believe that we need to build in a mechanism. At an earlier stage, my noble friend Lord Avebury put forward the idea of someone, such as my noble friend Lord Carlile, taking a look at it and reporting to Parliament. There have been many attempts by this side of the House to push this matter. I do not understand why Ministers have resisted them. Such a measure would focus attention and allow Parliament to return to the matter at a set time if the emergency powers are used.
	The three Acts that we are replacing are respectively 60, 80 and 90 years old. If those Acts had come under the kind of threat of, say, 9/11, I am not sure that we would have found that they were all in such wonderful apple-pie order, as demanded by the circumstances. Due to the need to consider civil liberties aspects from time to time and an assurance that the powers are in working order to meet a threat, it would have been wise to include something along the lines of the amendments. For that reason we on these Benches support them today.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is well to remember that no government can be trusted. When considering our present Home Secretary, one looks back at my right honourable friend Michael Howard not as a hard Home Secretary but as the founder member of the Howard League for Penal Reform. As the noble Lord, the excellent jobbing politician, has just said, we are concerned about the gentle jacking up of the removal of liberties here, there and everywhere. The noble Lord may shake his head, but the list is quite long and rather frightening. Burke said,
	"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
	We must all be eternally vigilant.
	I would trust the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, with my wallet, but I do not trust any politician with the amount of powers that the Bill will provide. Parliament must check the Act in some way. I would not trust the noble Lord's party or my own party with it. We must draw a halt to this gradual ratcheting up of the loss of our liberties which we have seen progressively over the past seven years.

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, can the Minister say whether passing Amendments Nos. 49B and 50B would significantly limit the power and capacity of the Government to respond to the very serious situations that they properly envisage?

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I have attended some of the debates during the passage of the Bill and on one occasion said that I found some of the provisions chilling. I have heard the responses and I have read Hansard, and although I find the reassurances offered by Ministers full of sincerity—I do not doubt them—somehow they do not work for me. I do not feel reassured. It is for others in the House to judge whether I am alone in that.
	One reason why I am not reassured is that the gentle and reassuring words uttered in the Chamber have to be juxtaposed with the very strong rhetoric that is used in public and conveyed to the media of a government that are determined to do something about the risks that our society faces. Which face are we to look at when considering an amendment of this kind? I would support almost any proposal that limits the Bill simply because it is a way of registering that the reassurance has not really reassured us.
	I have another worry. It is almost a prayer that the day will not come when elected Members on the government side in another place find themselves in opposition, forgetting that they supported these provisions and that Back-Benchers on the opposition side of another place find themselves in government, forgetting that they opposed them. Those are my worries and for those reasons I support the intentions behind the amendment.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has put his finger on the point very eloquently. Governments forget that they will be in opposition and fairly quickly oppositions always forget that they were in opposition. The death of a government can be brought about by finally forgetting that it will ever be replaced by someone else. If we have lived a few years, we have seen it happen.
	The amendment answers the objections made to it in the letter to my noble friend. We accept that there is a 30-day review of any instrument that is produced. That is not in question. However, what is in question is how often the whole mechanism will be reviewed. The noble Lord pointed out that a predecessor of the Bill sat on the shelf, or as my noble friend would say, in the garage, for 20 years before it was used. If it had been a car, it would have been hopelessly out of date and not fit for service. The longer this Bill remains unused as an Act on the shelf the more likely it is to be unfit for service. That is one good reason for reviewing it.
	The other good reason is that given by the right reverend Prelate. The Bill offers sweeping powers that could be misused to keep citizens from justice and from democracy. No one believes that it will happen now, but everyone should be afraid that it could happen in the future, because if they are not afraid of that, it will happen in the future. For that reason my noble friend's amendment should be carried by the House and accepted by another place, which would be swept away by such a cataclysm just as quickly as this House.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much support my noble friend's amendment. I do not see that the Minister has made a case for the provision causing any difficulty to the Government at all. He said that after the use of these powers it would be inevitable that Parliament would want to debate them extensively. That may be so, but they can have a resolution to vote on the matter at the end.
	That is scarcely an additional imposition on the Government. It is only when the Government might wish to avoid such a debate, which this Government assures us that they would not, that there would be any question of imposing something on the Government. Under those circumstances, it is something that I would wish to see imposed.
	The noble Lord says that we are unlikely ever to want to do without legislation of this sort. I agree. But if there were unhappiness with the way the Act works, I would expect the process of having the debate on these amendments to extract some concessions from the Government as to ways in which the legislation would be used in the future, or as to amendments which would be made by a subsequent Bill. When we see how this mechanism that we invented and put into place works, it will be absolutely necessary for us to review it properly and ensure that we understand how all the safeguards, which we have taken so much time over, work in practice. People are not capable of putting together a perfect mechanism. You have to work it through, see how it works in practice, improve it and then come back and work it through again.
	It is not within our capacity to write the perfect computer program, as anyone in air traffic control will know, or to put together the perfect computer system, as many government departments will know. The idea that we can produce perfect legislation is ridiculous. We have to see how the provision works in practice. When it has worked in practice, we have to take a formal look at it. That is what the amendment is for.
	Beyond anything else it provides, as the right reverend Prelate has said, another level of comfort that these powers will not be misused. It does so in a way that causes the Government—now or of the day—no inconvenience whatever.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive my ignorance of the Bill. He asks us to be comforted by the fact that after 30 days a regulation falls in. Is it possible for the Government to renew that regulation immediately and to go on doing so? Therefore, how much comfort is that?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have listened with care to previous debates on the issue and with care to the comments and points that have been made during this morning's relatively short exchange on the matter. Although I have some sympathy with the heart-felt pleas of all those involved, ultimately I remain to be convinced that the Government do not have the matter right.
	What the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has said about sunsetting overlooks the quite aggressive sunsetting which is within the current legislation. I repeat the point because I think that it is an important one—the effect of Part 2 of the Bill comes into play only when those regulations are made and are in place. A regime which means that those regulations come to a close after 30 days and have to be urgently reconsidered is a very aggressive sunsetting approach in itself.
	I make that point because I have heard sunsetting debates on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was certainly here when we had some vigorous debates about sunsetting in relation to anti-hooliganism measures. There we agreed to sunsetting for the very good reason that outbreaks of hooliganism can, as we all know in so far as concerns the footballing season, take place in the immediate circumstances pretty much when there is a game going on or before and after that game. Because that is a continuing feature it seemed right to us to have the facility for a sunsetting consideration and to review the effectiveness of that legislation; and to see whether it worked, was workable and was fit for the purpose. That is because it would be a continuing situation.
	It is for that reason that we put sunsetting in place regarding crime and security and anti-terrorism measures. That was the appropriate way to look at that legislation. It matched that sort of consideration and those criteria. So, I think it is appropriate in those circumstances.
	The Bill puts in place far more protections than we have ever had with previous emergency powers legislation. There has been a lot of debate and discussion this morning about the fact that some legislation has been on the statute book for a very long time without being used. In one case there was a gap of 29 years without the powers being used. There was no need during the course of that time for there to be any sunsetting. This Bill contains more robust safeguards than earlier emergency powers legislation. Certainly, it contains more robust powers than the legislation put into place in 1948.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made the point that we have been nibbling away at liberties. This Government have a very good record on liberties. They have put in place a fundamental piece of legislation—the Human Rights Act—that protects all our liberties; they have put in place the data protection legislation which does exactly the same; they have protected freedom of information; and they have put in place discrimination legislation. That is four pieces of legislation which go in completely the other direction to the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
	So we have taken steps to protect liberties; and I would argue that the Human Rights Act is a fundamental protection in that regard. That brings me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about the "what if?" question; namely, that a government in the future might decide to abuse emergency powers and to extend the life of Parliament for political purposes. I thought that she used a strange example—the foot and mouth powers—which we might want to use to extend the life of Parliament. I put that on one side. The case is that the Government would be able to use emergency powers only if the situation was a very serious emergency. The Government would have to demonstrate that the extension of these powers was a proportionate response. They would have to have regard to the use of regulations to protect the activities of Parliament. If none of those conditions held good, Parliament, or the courts for that matter, would simply strike down the regulations.
	So I do not foresee the circumstances envisaged by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I just cannot see a government—certainly not this Government or, indeed, a Conservative government—abusing the powers in the way suggested by the noble Baroness.
	The triple lock helps us in that regard. Emergency regulations can only be made for the purposes of dealing with the emergency. So I cannot see the circumstances or the scenario that the noble Baroness paints as being one where a future government would abuse their position and powers in terms of Part 2, and in terms of using regulations to extend the life of a Parliament.
	Finally, I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland: would these amendments hinder response? The answer to that question must be "no", but the problem with the amendments is that they are in a sense otiose rather than damaging, unless of course Parliament could not agree to their renewal. Inserting the sunsetting provision in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, and as supported by other noble Lords this morning, would create an atmosphere of uncertainty. That would be extremely unfortunate.
	We do not need these provisions. There is a rigorous and aggressive sunsetting provision built into Part 2 of this Bill. That is an important protection. Moreover, the protection that we have put in place in any event by introducing the Human Rights Act 1998 is overriding in that regard. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment this morning. It is not in the best interests of the Bill and how it is intended to work.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords, as well as the right reverend Prelate, who have supported me and spoken in favour of the amendment. Although there is sunsetting on the regulations, I repeat the fact that the amendment allows a review of the emergency powers themselves, not the regulations. That is a very different point and I am sorry that the Minister has not taken that on board. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote a letter to me on 15 November about sunsetting provisions and, in her penultimate paragraph, she states:
	"The Government shares fully the belief that effective protection and scrutiny must be in place to ensure the Bill cannot be misused".
	That is what we are seeking to do today. It was Edmund Burke who said that all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing. The amendments offer the Government the opportunity to do something, even at this late stage, properly to safeguard our freedoms, liberties and democracy. I ask the House to agree to the amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49B) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 152; Not-Contents, 123.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

50 Page 21, line 40, at end insert—
	"(2A) The provisions of Part 2 of this Act shall come into force in accordance with provision made by a Minister of the Crown by order.
	(2B) An order under subsection (2A) shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of three years beginning on the day it is made unless both Houses of Parliament resolve that it shall further continue in force for a period not exceeding three years.
	(2C) An order made under subsection (2A) and renewed in accordance with subsection (2B) may, on expiry, be renewed following resolution of both Houses of Parliament for further periods not exceeding three years."
	50A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 50 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 50A.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 50 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 50A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Buscombe: moved Amendment No. 50B, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 50, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 50A, at end insert "but do propose Amendment 50B in lieu thereof"—
	50B Page 21, line 40, at end insert—
	"(2A) The provisions of Part 2 of this Act shall come into force in accordance with provision made by a Minister of the Crown by order.
	(2B) An order under subsection (2A) shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of one year beginning on the day that an order is made under the provisions of section 20 unless both Houses of Parliament resolve that it shall further continue in force."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

51 Page 21, line 41, leave out "or (2)" insert ", (2) or (2A)"
	51A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason—
	Because it is consequential on Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 to which the Commons have disagreed.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 51 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 51A. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 49.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 51 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 51A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, That they disagree to the amendment made by the Lords in lieu of an amendment disagreed to to the Pensions Bill for which they assign a reason.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons message be considered forthwith.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

359 Before Clause 229, insert the following new Clause— "Removal of compulsion to take annuities Notwithstanding any statutory provision or rule of law to the contrary, the requirement for pensioners to take their pension in the form of an annuity, together with the requirement to do so by the age of 75, shall cease to have effect, provided that the pensioner can demonstrate that he has resources to ensure that he will not become dependent on means-tested benefits."
	359A The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it would alter the area of taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
	359B The Lords do not insist on its Amendment No. 359, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359A, but do propose the following Amendment No. 359B in lieu thereof—
	Insert the following new Clause— "Amendment of rules to take pension annuities by the age of 75 Any statutory provision or rule of law requiring a pension to be taken in the form of an annuity by the age of 75 shall be amended so that the age limit is 85."
	359C The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
	Because it would alter the area of taxation, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359B to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359C.
	I shall try to be brief, because I suspect that there are few new arguments left to advance. We are now embarked on a process that we will need to approach carefully and responsibly; if we do not, we will go into further rounds of ping-pong and increase the jeopardy to the Pensions Bill and all the important measures in it. I am sure that no noble Lord wishes to see the Bill go down on the basis of a dispute over an amendment that was never part of the original Bill and is not part of the core arguments behind it.
	The amendment concerning the raising of the maximum required age for annuitisation was reversed in the other place for the same reasons as was its predecessor on the previous day. Once again, and inevitably, it was disagreed with because it related to financial matters; it allows a member who defers vesting to continue to make tax-privileged contributions to his pension fund until he draws an income, and it creates a new tax relief by potentially allowing tax-advantaged retirement funds to be returned tax-free on the member's death.
	As noble Lords will be well aware, the elected House has now spoken twice. It must therefore be evident that any other such amendment that this House agrees will be reversed on the same grounds, with the future of the whole Bill becoming increasingly precarious with each attempt. The Bill seeks to secure DB schemes both for the Pension Protection Fund and, in the shorter term, to help those who have already lost their pensions through the financial assistance scheme. It is therefore with considerable regret that I see the amendment tabled today.
	I shall not repeat all the arguments; I doubt whether it would make much difference to noble Lords' minds at this stage. However, I wish to make three points. First, even were the other place to decide, quite implausibly, to let this type of amendment succeed at the third attempt, we could clearly not simply write it into the Bill at this stage without causing the utmost legislative confusion and uncertainty for those whose best interests we all seek to protect. If there were to be change, that change must be for future legislation.
	Secondly, as my right honourable friend in the other place and I have repeatedly stressed, the Government are engaged and focused on this question. Noble Lords and their honourable and right honourable friends in the other place have clearly drawn our attention to the work and the data emerging from the Pensions Commission. We are therefore committed to revisiting the question of annuitisation age, on a careful and urgent basis, once the commission reports. In the light of the debates in your Lordships' House and the range of views expressed, I cannot believe that the commission could possibly overlook the issue. So, again, if there is to be a change, we are indicating the approach route to it.
	I shall return to where I started. We are here today not really debating the question of annuitisation at all; we are debating the fate of the Pensions Bill, and the measures, including the key protection measures, for people whose pensions may otherwise be at risk after 20, 30 or 40 years of seeking in good faith to work and secure their pensions. If we prolonged this debate, those measures would be put at risk. For the sake of that Bill and of all those people, I now urge noble Lords to show the humanity, wisdom and possibily even the generosity that I would expect them to exhibit at this stage. I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment and to allow the Bill finally to pass.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359C.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins: rose to move Amendment No. 359D, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359C, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 359E in lieu thereof—
	359E Insert the following new Clause— "Amendment of rules to take pension annuities by the age of 75
	Any statutory provision or rule of law requiring a pension to be taken in the form of an annuity by the age of 75 shall be amended so that the age limit is 80."

Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness has, as far as one can see, rested her argument on the overall situation with regard to the Bill. There is a simple way round that dilemma: the Government should accept the amendment that I have just moved. It is entirely sensible and appropriate in all the circumstances.
	The Government have been incredibly determined not to give anything away on the issue. We moved an amendment that was fairly wide-ranging. It had two aspects, as we discussed in earlier debates. We have since narrowed it down to the simple question of age. It will not have the consequences that we would like to see, and we have made it clear that the incoming Conservative government will attend to the matter at an early stage. The arguments have been discussed at length. I was going to say "ad nauseam", but that is merely the feeling that one has as one comes to the end of 90 hours of debate on a Bill.
	None the less, the overall question in the original amendment that I proposed should be addressed. We have compromised: we suggested that the age limit should be 85. We are now compromising on our compromise, and it is only the intransigence of the Government that is creating the problem on which the noble Baroness relied almost exclusively in rejecting our amendment.
	Naturally, I read with interest the debate in another place. We have discussed the extraordinary position of the Minister of State for Pensions, Mr Malcolm Wicks. In a previous debate, he could not even distinguish whether the figure that was being used in the debate—2,500—referred to the amount of money or the number of people. He got the two mixed up. He was the same yesterday. At the beginning of the debate, when he was seeking to reject the amendment that we are now discussing—Amendment No. 359B—he put forward a series of arguments to the effect that the matter was privileged and that the Commons ought not to agree to it, while relating his remarks to Amendment No. 359A, which was actually the government amendment. It took some while and several interventions, including interventions by the Deputy Speaker, for the Minister to find out where he had got to. His response was:
	"Indeed. If I mis-spoke—as I think certain American Presidents occasionally do—I apologise"—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/04; col. 1430.]
	It was perhaps a little immodest of him to compare himself with presidents of the United States. Also, it was a rather derogatory remark. Clearly, he had not listened to the speech made at the Lord Mayor of London's banquet a few days ago, when the Prime Minister suggested that one ought not to make derogatory remarks about presidents of the United States, in particular Mr Bush. Mr Wicks is pretty much off the party line, not to say generally confused.
	The noble Baroness did not repeat the arguments from earlier debates, although, no doubt, she believes that they also cover the issue that we are now discussing. She relied on two things. First, she relied on the very complicated proposal included in the Finance Bill by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that sought to do something to deal with the problem. As I have pointed out, his system is virtually incomprehensible, and the number of people who will take advantage of it is not likely to be great, in the same way as only a limited number of people take up tax credits and so on.
	The other point, which the noble Baroness did not make, was that, in any case, the Chancellor's scheme does not come into effect until 2006, so a lot of people who are approaching 75 will not even be able to take advantage of it, whereas they would have been able to take advantage of what we propose. I do not know the reason for the delay; perhaps, no one, including the Chancellor, understands the scheme. Alternatively, it is because of the vested interests of those who will have a protected market for the provision of annuities.
	The other argument that the noble Baroness put forward in an attempt to deal with our earlier amendment and, I presume, this one, was that we must wait for Turner. The best way to sum that up would be as a policy of "procrastinate now". Turner does not report until after the general election. The Government are relying on him to suggest a way to sort out the appalling chaos in our pension system, which has resulted from the actions of the Government since 1997.
	Why do we suppose that Mr Turner, who presented an admirable summary of the factual situation, is the person best qualified to tell this House or the other place how we ought to reform pensions? It is essentially a matter for politicians. I do not think that waiting for Turner, in that sense, would do anything to help the situation, whereas our amendment would.
	The noble Baroness referred to the overall position on the Bill. There is the Pension Protection Fund, which was in the original Bill, and the financial assistance scheme, which was added at a late stage in the Commons. Helpful though such measures are—I do not dispute that—and despite the unfortunate side-effects that the Bill will have, encouraging some employers to abandon final salary schemes, in order to avoid a levy, the PPF and the FAS are sticking plasters on a gaping wound created by the Chancellor's actions, particularly the change in advance corporation tax, which has depleted the resources available to pension schemes by some £25 billion. It is interesting to compare that amount with the £400 million that the Chancellor has put forward for the financial assistance scheme. That sum is almost universally regarded as inadequate. When the scheme is implemented, the protection afforded to those whose pension schemes have already gone bust is likely to turn out to be a bitter disappointment. Taking into account the assets of the various schemes, one need only divide the amount of money by the number of potential beneficiaries over 20 years or so to realise that the amount concerned will not be adequate.
	The Minister in the other place sought to argue that the amendment would affect the "area of taxation". I was mistaken the other day in thinking that the reason for which the Commons rejected our original amendment was based on a formula that was not normal. I gather that it is not used as frequently as some of the others but is used on occasion. We ought to consider the matter. The phrase "area of taxation" is much too vague to allow us to distinguish whether the basis on which your Lordships' amendments are rejected is sufficiently precise. At all events, it is not the least bit clear how the proposal will seriously affect taxation.
	The trouble is that Mr Wicks seems to have difficulty reading out his brief precisely. That is not something of which I would accuse the noble Baroness. She always reads out her brief very precisely. Not only that, she then explains in her own words very cogently what it actually meant. Mr Wicks, on the other hand, appears incapable of doing either, so it is difficult to understand from the debate in the Commons the exact grounds on which he rejected the amendment and argued that there would be an increase in taxation. We must reject the argument picked up by some parts of the press that it is somehow a tax loophole. It is not. No doubt, the noble Baroness can explain it all to us.
	It is appropriate for your Lordships again to take a view on this. As I say, it is a compromise of a compromise. It is only the intransigence of the Treasury—of course, it is the Treasury that is driving these issues, not the Department for Work and Pensions, which is more preoccupied with problems in the Child Support Agency and so forth—that is really at stake. This is a reasonable amendment. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 359B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 359C, at end insert "but do propose Amendment No. 359E in lieu thereof".—(Lord Higgins.)

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment, which is a reasonable compromise, as we supported the two previous amendments on this topic. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has been a very assiduous reader of Hansard. My honourable friend Steve Webb and I work extremely closely on this Bill. As noble Lords can see, he is here now. I was down in the Commons Chamber last night listening.
	It is only fair to the noble Baroness to quote Mr Webb, who said:
	"It was intriguing to compare and contrast the approaches adopted by the two Ministers: Baroness Hollis gave detailed, careful and thorough arguments, none of which stood up, but they were at least comprehensive; the Minister for Pensions [Mr Wicks] simply said that privilege applied".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/04; col. 1434.]
	I think that it is useful also to have that on the record in this place.
	Let us think back to 1976: I remember it well. I was a special adviser to Roy Jenkins in a Labour government even more distinguished than this one. The noble Baroness will also remember that period well. We both stood in the October 1974 general election. We both narrowly failed to get elected to Parliament. She was 33. I was 27.
	That was a generation ago. Even on the measure of life expectancy preferred by the noble Baroness, it has risen by four years since then. Why is it that the age of 75 for compulsory annuitisation is the only age limit in the pensions world that is frozen in 1970s aspic?
	As the noble Baroness said, the elected House has spoken twice. Clearly, none of us want to see this Pensions Bill lost, but there is a very reasonable and sensible compromise here on the table. I listened carefully to her remarks that noble Lords on the opposition Benches have drawn their attention to this issue and, indeed, to its discussion of the Turner report: she can say that again.
	I was interested to note and welcomed the gradual movement towards a firmer commitment to a review, as the Financial Times refers to it today, in the words that the noble Baroness used, even compared to the words of Malcolm Wicks last night. We welcome that. But we still believe that this is a sensible, realistic amendment. Yesterday, 57 noble Lords on these Benches voted for the amendment to raise the age to 85. That was the best turnout from these Benches since the days of Lloyd George. I invite my noble friends to support this resolution in the Lobby with equal fervour now.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has come forward with this amendment of compromise, which I ventured to suggest to him yesterday. I assume that—

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I apologise for not attributing to the noble Lord the genesis of this amendment, which, of course, he did yesterday.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sure that it was always in the back of the noble Lord's mind anyway. I assume that the age of 85, which he proposed yesterday, was essentially proposed as a bargaining counter or a negotiating ploy. Certainly, there was no realistic prospect of the Government accepting it.
	In contrast, setting the age at 80 is entirely fair and logical. It reflects the increase in average life expectancy since the age of 75 was originally proposed, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, has just pointed out. For that reason alone, I hope that your Lordships will vote for the amendment.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I will be brief. No one wishes to rehearse all the arguments at this stage. I want to pick up just one particular point and make a couple of general remarks. My first point concerns the teasing remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the other end, the 250,000 and so on.
	I was there, but the noise and hubbub in the Chamber was such that I was not absolutely sure that I could hear every word correctly. On reading Hansard, my suspicion was confirmed that the confusion about whether the figure referred to 250,000 people or £250,000 was triggered—if I may say so—by Mr Webb. He inadvertently derailed the debate and with it my honourable friend who subsequently tried to bring it back on the rails. It was one of those situations where that could very easily happen, but it was obviously clarified quite quickly.
	I just want to repeat that I do not think that anyone in your Lordships' House—certainly after the very long but never wearisome, of course, debates that we have had on the Pensions Bill—could doubt that the challenges facing pensions in general and final salary schemes in particular are interlocked with concerns about increased longevity, a reduction in age dependency ratios of pensioners to workers and, of course, the risk associated with relying on a stock market that has turned out to be as volatile as it has in recent years.
	In that context, I am sure that it is inconceivable to your Lordships, as well as to me, that the issue of longevity will not run through the Adair Turner report, whether it is associated with the rise that some people have called for, but which I do not support; the rise of the state pension age; the issue of longevity in terms of the lifetime styling of funds going into pension funds when working out the appropriate FRS17 risk behind DB schemes; or in terms of the future of DC schemes.
	It is so key to the whole future of pensions and pension stability that I cannot conceive that it will not be included. In that process, therefore, it is inconceivable that Mr Turner will not take on board the issue of whether 75 years old remains a fit and appropriate age at which to require people to annuitise their money purchase pots.
	Having said that, we have already had an extraordinarily valuable report from Mr Turner, which followed the House of Lords' report on the economics of ageing, on which I think that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, was involved. Given that report, and given that his report will be produced in the autumn about one year away, it seems to me inappropriate as well as downright stubborn—if I may say so—to seek to push the Government, to bounce the Government even, into a position on that in advance of the Turner debate, which may open up an understanding of the ramifications across the whole pension field.
	If that review was not forthcoming fairly soon, perhaps I may have somewhat more sympathy with the noble Lord's case for a sort of tokenist gesture from the Government. That is not the case. I cannot conceive that it will not be considered by the Turner review. In the light of that, we will have a much more secure position if your Lordships, the Government and the other House wish to take that issue further and forward.
	The elected House has spoken twice. This is the point at which we should accede. On opening, I said that this Bill is about seeking—I know that the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Oakeshott, all of your Lordships and the House at the other end seek—to secure as best we can pensions for which people have spent their working years trying to build up in order to float them off poverty in retirement.
	At the core of this Bill is a Pension Protection Fund or a financial assistance fund for those who do not come within the scope of the levy and the PPF. We have crawled over this Bill absolutely rightly. I am the first to admit that in conjunction with Members of both Benches opposite the Bill is in a more robust and appropriate state than when it entered this House.
	It would be wrong to jeopardise this Bill now for the sake of a vote on something that is essentially extraneous to it. We may have a range of views about that. That debate will continue over the next year and, I do not doubt, the year after. That is the right place and time for that debate to occur. It is not now.
	I urge your Lordships to allow us to give people outside the signal that they need; that both Houses of Parliament and all parties in both Houses of this Parliament want to ensure the security of people's final salary pensions. There is an honourable and honest debate to continue, which will continue. This is not the place for it now. I ask your Lordships to pass this Bill.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, as she has throughout our previous debates amounting to something like 90 hours on this matter, the noble Baroness has replied in a courteous manner. I should like to take this opportunity to say how much I appreciate that. But she did not raise in any way what effect this might have on the Revenue. We have had no figure for that.
	The fact that this concerns only a certain number of people deferring their annuity for a bit longer, and only those approaching the age of 75, cannot mean a very large sum of money. The noble Baroness has given no indication of how much, but it could not be very large. There is therefore no reason why the Government could not accept this amendment and we hope that, on reflection—they have a little time before it goes to the other place—they will do so.
	The noble Baroness appears to rely heavily on Mr Turner. Yes, he has produced a report which was well presented and made the public more aware of the problems. Interestingly, he did not, as have others, put enormous stress on the effect of the Chancellor's change in advanced corporation tax on final salary schemes. However, the crucial issue here is that this matter has been debated time and again and there are no new arguments. I cannot believe that Mr Turner will come up with something to which we can say, "My goodness. No one ever thought of that". I say that because we have debated this so many times over the years on Private Member's Bills, Motions and so forth. That has been clear throughout.
	From the point of view of the noble Baroness, there is something of a constitutional issue to consider. What one does on policy of this kind, with the data helpfully summarised by Mr Turner, is a decision that politicians have to take. The Conservative Party has taken a view on both aspects of this issue, not only on the narrow point of the age limit, and has made its position absolutely clear. It is therefore not appropriate to delegate this to someone who has set up a commission on pensions, even though the noble Baroness argues that we must wait and see what Mr Turner says and then we will do it.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that we would need to wait and see what he does, and in the light of that we would all be able to decide the appropriate way forward.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we have had all the arguments and it is now appropriate, as the Conservative Party has done, to take a decision on the matter. Regardless of what is said by Mr Turner, who is not an elected Member of Parliament or a Member of this House, it will not be decisive. I understand that the noble Baroness accepts that.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting a second time. I sought to make the point that there is no automaticity here. I would not wish it to be thought that there is any automaticity between what Mr Turner recommends and what the Government do. All I am saying is that it would be unreasonable to expect the Government to move in advance of a major report which will look at the implications not only of longevity, but also across the field at other issues such as compulsion. Given that that is in the offing over the course of the next year, it is wise to have that as a part of our background concern.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, there may be other areas which have not previously been investigated in any depth where Turner can make helpful suggestions. But few issues have been investigated in as great a depth as this and therefore I do not think that it is a reasonable argument.
	In view of the fact that the noble Baroness has given us no indication of the cost, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 359E) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 119.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
	Perhaps I need to give a little explanation. As the House knows, the Commons are in the process of considering the Hunting Bill. After that, they will consider the amendment to the Civil Contingencies Bill which we have sent back. So two Bills are still in play. Thanks to that most recent splendid victory, one of the Bills is now awaiting Royal Assent.
	The position is simply that we cannot be precise about when we shall consider the Hunting Bill because the House of Commons cannot be precise about when it will be sending it to us. However, it is unlikely to be before 4.30 p.m. I shall adjourn the House awaiting messages from the Commons—words to that effect will appear on the annunciator—but please watch the annunciator. One should never repeat a gag, but it might be worth it this time: this really is the last day—I hope.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.46 to 6 p.m.]

Hunting Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, That they insist on their disagreement with your Lordships in the amendments on which your Lordships insisted, and disagree to the amendments made by your Lordships in lieu of Lords amendments disagreed to but have made an amendment in lieu to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be considered forthwith.
	Moved, That the Commons amendments be considered forthwith.—(Lord Whitty.)

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps before we proceed I can crave the indulgence of the House and record my extreme concern about today's procedures. Like many others in the House, I have been baffled how we are still pushing this matter to and fro between the Houses. This House has repeatedly made clear its support for the compromise of registered hunting; against that, the other place has insisted on a ban. There is a clear double insistence on the main issue in the Bill.
	In such circumstances, a normal Bill would have been lost, although in this instance the Parliament Acts could have been used to force it into law. Now we have this proposition back before us again. This has been made possible by the Commons packaging all Lords' amendments together and altering only one. I am told that this could go on indefinitely until, no doubt, it is hoped that your Lordships will give up and the Government can get a hunting ban without the use of the Parliament Act. Such a system enables and rewards government inflexibility.
	This procedure was unprecedented until May when, by mistake, the Government lost their Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. In order to help bail them out we agreed, exceptionally, to accept this procedure on one amendment on that one Bill. I said at the time that,
	"this is an exceptional agreement . . . I know of no direct precedent for it. And, for the record, I must say firmly that it must form absolutely no precedent for the future".—[Official Report, 11/5/04; col. 153.]
	The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said on the same occasion:
	"It is obviously undesirable that this situation should have arisen at all. I am sure that we all wish to ensure that it does not do so again".—[Official Report, 11/5/04; col. 152.]
	It is extraordinary that we find ourselves in exactly the same position again.
	The Leader of the House published a statement on 21 July reflecting discussions between the authorities of both Houses. It stated that,
	"the Clerk of the Parliaments will invite the Lords Procedure Committee to consider changes to the practice of the House, to allow more flexibility in dealing with Commons amendments which have been packaged".
	The Procedure Committee has not considered this, neither has the House. This procedure is novel; it has never been debated by the House nor agreed by it. In the light of what has happened today I very much hope that the Procedure Committee will look at the matter urgently and make whatever recommendations are necessary to protect the power of this House.
	However, under the provisional arrangements, I am advised that the procedure we are faced with is just in order. I ask the House to accept that—but this one more time only. Let me be blunt—and I am sure that I speak for many Peers on all sides of the House and on all sides of the argument—if this House maintains its position now, as I hope it will, and if the other House seeks to return the package yet again, we should at that stage decline to discuss it further if a Motion to do so is laid.
	I hope that my speaking at this stage will not introduce a wide-ranging debate on the procedural question now. The Procedure Committee must consider the issue urgently and report to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

Lord Roper: My Lords, I also do not wish to introduce a wide-ranging debate. I have a certain degree of sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We were very concerned when we had to deal with the problems of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill earlier this year and were very pleased when we received in July the reports of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons. They tried to show us the way forward so that we did not fall into these problems again.
	As noble Lords will know because of our recent considerations, the Procedure Committee has had to consider our working practices. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that Procedure Committee consideration of this issue has not yet occurred. It is none the less unfortunate because we are again, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, faced with a considerable difficulty. We have great sympathy for the position of the Clerk of the Parliaments who is having to deal with an extraordinarily difficult situation before the House has clarified it.
	Therefore, while I think it would be a great mistake and would be totally misunderstood outside the House if we were not to proceed with the consideration of these amendments on this occasion, it is most important that we consider very urgently a report to the Clerk of the Parliaments so that we do not get ourselves into this situation again.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his contribution and for giving us notice of it. Slightly surprisingly, this is probably the high point of consensus in the whole consideration of the Bill. We should not be in this situation and the Procedure Committee should look at the position again, and rapidly. However, we are advised that this procedure is in order, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has acknowledged. It may not be the most satisfactory procedure in the world, but we are where we are. There are certain procedures which the Clerk clearly advised would not have been in order. This, however, is in order. I thank the Clerk for so advising, and suggest that we get on with the debate. If the House does not object, I will move my first Motion.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 112 as first printed for the Lords.]

Lord Whitty: rose to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 9, 10C, 11, 12C, 13 to 44, 46C, 47 to 51, 52C, 53 and 54, to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 54C in lieu:
	54C Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause— "Commencement (1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on 31st July 2006—
	(a) sections 1 to 4,
	(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to sections 1 to 4,
	(c) sections 11 to 14 in so far as they relate to sections 1 to 4,
	(d) Schedule 1, and
	(e) Schedules 2 and 3, except in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.
	(2) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed—
	(a) section 5,
	(b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to section 5,
	(c) sections 11 to 13 in so far as they relate to section 5, and
	(d) Schedules 2 and 3 in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies."

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are at a very late stage in the proceedings on the Bill. This House has made its view known to the Commons; the Commons have made their view known to the Lords. The only outstanding issue, in reality, is the date of the Bill's commencement. If your Lordships insist on the amendment of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu to my Motion, the Bill will go back to the Commons again, there will be a further insistence, and there will be no further stage at which we can consider it again. Therefore, this is the last chance to consider commencement.
	The Commons did what I urged your Lordships to do last night—to take a middle way on the commencement date and move away from the virtual immediate commencement of this legislation and move to 30 July 2006. I elaborated on the advantages of so doing last night and shall repeat them briefly. It would give some time for adjustment and to see how the animals were dealt with, at least in part. It would also allow time for the will of the nation to be known because July 2006 is after the last possible date that the next general election can be held.
	This approach therefore meets the criteria that have been advanced by the opposition—in its widest sense—to the Bill. We need not destroy immediately the lives of people before they have had time to adjust and the lives of animals before those options have been considered. It also meets the democratic arguments that the people of this country need to have a say in this before the Act, which is likely to be subject to the Parliament Act, is imposed on the hunting fraternity.
	For all those reasons, it is very important that we take a positive decision in favour of a July 2006 commencement date. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu is a package amendment which explicitly rejects that date. It is a single Motion rejecting all the proposals of the Commons, including the July 2006 date.
	The issue before us now is therefore not registration against ban. It is not even Lords versus Commons. It is the date, because we know what will happen to those arguments and the will of the Commons will prevail. The only argument before us and the only thing that this House can really determine tonight is the commencement date. If noble Lords vote for my Motion they will be starting the commencement of this Act in July 2006. If noble Lords vote for my noble friend's Motion, hunting will come to an end in February 2005. That is the stark choice. Any other elements are actually passed. We have dealt with them and they are in procedure and moving towards, regrettably, a Parliament Act conclusion. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 9, 10C, 11, 12C, 13 to 44,46C, 47 to 51, 52C, 53 and 54, to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 54C in lieu.—(Lord Whitty.)

Baroness Mallalieu: rose to move as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 9, 10C, 11, 12C, 13 to 44, 46C, 47 to 51, 52C, 53 and 54 to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 54C.

Baroness Mallalieu: I beg to move Motion B as an amendment to Motion A. If this Motion is agreed to, the House will insist on its amendments and disagree with the Commons amendment in lieu.
	The conduct of this Bill is an object lesson in how not to achieve good legislation. I very much doubt whether the amendments before us should be before us in this form. My amendments seek to restore the compromise registration Bill for which this House voted so decisively. I correct the position that has just been expressed to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty: to vote against my amendment is to vote for the banning Bill, which I hope no noble Lord who voted before for registration will do now.
	The other place has put us in an invidious position by returning the banning Bill parcelled together with the identical 18-month commencement date amendment that this House has already firmly rejected. The other place has not moved one inch at any point in this saga. The Lords have moved again and again from status quo to self-regulation to statutory regulation. The 18-month commencement is designed to assist the Government and avoid the consequences of bringing this Bill back now. It is not supported by the hunting community. If the Government want this Bill, they must surely have it via the Parliament Act in the form in which they sent it to us.
	This House has taken a principled stand. I hope that we will not abandon our principles now. I repeat: a vote against my amendment is a vote in favour of a ban. In the past few weeks, this House has done the countryside proud. It has also done liberty proud. Let those who despise both use the Parliament Act on this miserable Bill if they can, but let us not help them to avoid the consequences of what they are doing.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendments Nos. 1 to 9, 10C, 11, 12C, 13 to 44, 46C, 47 to 51, 52C, 53 and 54 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 54C.—(Baroness Mallalieu.)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches I must say that the procedure has been a nightmare today—complicated to a degree and undermining for those noble Lords who actually want to understand what is going on and have an input. I hope that we never have to go through a procedure as complicated as this again and I suspect the staff of the House and the Clerks feel the same.
	I believe that the vote is now simply about the commencement date. We have voted on the other issues and it is what those in the countryside would wish us to be voting on. Earlier in the passage of this Bill, we heard pleas about animal welfare, the welfare of people involved in hunting, the welfare of the countryside as a whole and countryside management issues. We have heard, indeed, impassioned pleas about the red deer herd on Exmoor.
	For all those reasons, I believe that 18 months' adjustment is absolutely essential. Given the passion of their earlier speeches, it is unbelievable that some noble Lords are really pressing for a ban to be brought in by February. Therefore, we should support the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Besides that, I emphasise for noble Lords who, I believe, have a firm commitment to the democratic process, that the electorate have a right to have a view on the matter. We should support the idea of commencement being delayed, and we shall be supporting the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for those reasons.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, she says "we"—

A noble Lord: She has sat down.

Lord Whitty: My Lords—

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I speak on a matter of conscience. I do not agree with what has been stated from the Front Bench, and it is my perfect right to do so, as this is a free vote. I believe that the consequence of voting for an 18 months' delay will be a ban. That is just a fact.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do have to repeat, particularly in the light of the noble Lord's comments, that this is not the vote that will decide whether or not there is a ban. The fact that the House has repeatedly taken one view, and that the House of Commons has taken its view, has determined, in effect, that the House of Commons will prevail and that the ban will occur. The only issue on which this House is voting tonight—and it can be a heroic gesture or principled gesture, if noble Lords wish—is whether hunting ends earlier or later.
	The principled stand of my noble friend and many others is respected. It may at times have appeared that we did not respect each other in this argument in the course of this debate—but that stand is respected, and is no doubt appreciated among the hunting fraternity and among many who do not agree with the hunting fraternity. But there comes a point when a principled stand must also be practical for the people for whom that stand was taken to defend. Can noble Lords really go back and tell the hunting fraternity that they have deliberately voted on the one issue that it remains to them to determine—to vote to end hunting earlier rather than late, without a period of adjustment, rather than with one, and without allowing for a democratic choice of the whole of the British people rather than allowing for one? That is the point at which principle no longer exists and party tactics begin to enter.
	There is one choice before noble Lords tonight: early end of hunting or later end of hunting. There will be a ban. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is wrong, because once the Bill leaves this House in the form my noble friend suggests, it will go back to the Commons and straight in to the Parliament Act procedures. That is the constitutional position. There is one choice: February 2005 or July 2006. That is the choice for noble Lords. I do have respect for other people's views in this matter, but now we are on course for a final decision.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the Minister says that the choice is only over the date. Surely the other important choice is whether the Bill is enacted under the Parliament Act, with all the challenges that could be made to that, or whether the Bill is enacted consensually, in which case the Parliament Act challenge would entirely go. The Minister must not pretend that we are talking only about time.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is now a matter for the constitutional process; it is not a matter for this House, for the noble Viscount or for myself. I have explained what the constitutional position is, but there is still a choice in relation to the timing.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am not aware that the noble Lord has consulted the Council of Hunting Associations. I did so this morning and it made it very clear that it wanted nothing of 18 months. The noble Lord's proposal is designed to help the Government over the pre-election period, and it is designed to try to persuade this House not to put the other in the position of having to use the Parliament Act with all the legal challenge that they know is likely to follow. The choice is a simple one: do we throw away our principles or do we vote to support this grubby little banning Bill? I hope that the House will continue to act in the principled way that it has throughout.

On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 114.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.
	Bill returned to the Commons with a reason.

Civil Contingencies Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, That they disagree to the amendments made by the Lords in lieu of amendments to which the Commons have disagreed to the Civil Contingencies Bill for which they assign reasons.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be considered forthwith.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 77, the Bill as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

49 Page 21, line 32, after "Act" insert, ", except for the provisions of Part 2"
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	49A Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.
	The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason 49A, but do propose the following Amendment 49B in lieu thereof—
	49B Page 21, line 33, at end insert "subject to the provisions of subsections (2A) and (2B) below"
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	49C Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.

LORDS AMENDMENT

50 Page 21, line 40, at end insert—
	"(2A) The provisions of Part 2 of this Act shall come into force in accordance with provision made by a Minister of the Crown by order.
	(2B) An order under subsection (2A) shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of three years beginning on the day it is made unless both Houses of Parliament resolve that it shall further continue in force for a period not exceeding three years.
	(2C) An order made under subsection (2A) and renewed in accordance with subsection (2B) may, on expiry, be renewed following resolution of both Houses of Parliament for further periods not exceeding three years."
	50A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.
	The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 50, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 50A, but do propose the following Amendment 50B in lieu thereof—
	50B Page 21, line 40, at end insert—
	"(2A) The provisions of Part 2 of this Act shall come into force in accordance with provision made by a Minister of the Crown by order.
	(2B) An order under subsection (2A) shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of one year beginning on the day that an order is made under the provisions of section 20 unless both Houses of Parliament resolve that it shall further continue in force."
	The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
	50C Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 49B and 50B to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 49C and 50C.
	Following concerns voiced both in your Lordships' House and in another place, we have looked again at the issue of sunsetting and reporting on the use of Part 2. The Government remain convinced that sunsetting the Act itself is not appropriate. The need to be able to respond to the most serious emergencies will not disappear after a given period, and revocation of this legislation would simply necessitate the putting in place of something very similar to replace it.
	As was made clear at Commons consideration of Lords amendments, any use of the powers under Part 2 will be subject to detailed and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, and will be limited by the restrictions and safeguards set out in the Bill. Any regulations made under the Bill will be subject to sunsetting after a maximum of 30 days. As I said earlier today, this is probably one of the most aggressive sunsetting clauses to be found anywhere on the statute book.
	We remain convinced that the sunsetting of regulations and the need for them to receive the assent of Parliament is the right way to ensure that the powers cannot be misused and that effective scrutiny takes place. Indeed, we have amended the Bill so that the regulations contain provisions to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny can take place, where that is affected by the emergency in question, or by response efforts.
	There is also no doubt, given the scale of the emergencies that we are discussing, that the Government's handling of the emergency will be subject to the most intense scrutiny, both inside and outside Parliament after the event. I need to refer only to the inquiries and reports published after the foot and mouth outbreak—a situation where emergency powers were not necessary—to highlight the fact that post-event scrutiny and review are, and will, remain defining features of the most serious of emergencies.
	However, in light of the concerns expressed, the Government are minded to give a firmer assurance to both Houses regarding how we ensure that the Act will operate correctly. So, in the event of the use of emergency powers, the Government will put in place formal arrangements to review how the Act and its mechanisms, including the safeguards, had worked in practice. To that end, within one year of the end of the point at which the emergency regulations fall, a senior Privy Counsellor appointed by the Government will review the operation of the Act in that instance. That process would be repeated for each and every emergency during which the Act was used.
	That review will be published and available to Parliament—and there will be a debate on the review. The findings will also provide a useful tool for the Government, who, as with any emergency, will be looking to learn lessons and to improve processes, wherever they become necessary. The Government will be conscious of the need to justify their decision to use the powers and their handling of the emergency in the cold light of day, before they use the powers and throughout the exercise of those powers.
	I believe that that is a more flexible and less mechanistic approach than a sunsetting debate a year after the use of the powers, which could be disproportionate and unnecessary, if the exercise of those powers was uncontroversial and effective. If we agree to this proposal, we will have settled upon a dual-track approach. In the first instance, actions under the Act will have been subject to the existing 30-day sunset provision. In the second instance, there will be a slower review of the operation of the Act itself. We hope that this will give the House the reassurance that it seeks and will demonstrate the Government's commitment to effective review and scrutiny of the use of emergency powers legislation, not only when it is used, but in the longer term, to consider the appropriateness of such legislation in the light of the experience of its use and the passage of time.
	I have been impressed by the sensible and consensual nature of the debates on this important legislation, both in this House and another place. I pay tribute to all who have contributed to our important debates and the telling contributions that they have made, which have led to a number of important and significant amendments. The Bill has benefited from a number of those helpful amendments, made in the light of concerns expressed during debate. I hope that noble Lords will view this proposal in the same light. For those reasons I commend it to the House.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 49B and 50B to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 49C and 50C.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I know that there are many occasions when all noble Lords wonder why they keep turning up to your Lordships' House and fighting on for whatever they believe in. This is one of those occasions when I believe that all that has been worth while.
	While we would have been more delighted if the amendment that we proposed earlier today had been accepted in another place, we are enormously grateful that the Government have responded in such a positive manner. We are sorry that their commitment will not be on the face of the Bill, but we accept the Minister's firm assurances that, in the event of the use of the emergency powers, formal arrangements will be put in place, so that within one year of those emergency regulations falling there will be a review of the workings of those powers and that the review will be published and debated in both Houses of Parliament.
	It is important that the government of the day are able to justify the use of those powers and their extent. We now have effective review and scrutiny, and that is what noble Lords across the House have been urging the Government to bring forward. So I am hugely grateful to the Minister for the statement that he has just made.
	I join the Minister in paying tribute to all noble Lords who have been tenacious throughout the passage of the Bill. I feel that noble Lords on all sides of the House have made a real difference. It has not been easy, and the Bill certainly got off to a fairly odd start with a late debate one evening in the summer. I think we all felt that the Bill was not being given enough attention by the Government, but we are grateful that they have listened. A number of important concessions have been made and a number of important debates led to those concessions. I close by saying a particular word of thanks to my noble friends behind me who have helped me during the passage of the Bill.

Lord McNally: My Lords, we, too, welcome these concessions. The longer I am in the House, the more puzzled I become as to why governments insist on the Dance of the Seven Veils or the politics of the souk—I am not sure which it is. I am puzzled as to why we have to wait until 20 to seven on the very last day of the Session for what everyone agrees is a perfectly sensible suggestion, but there we are.
	The solution is a hybrid—I hope that that does not get the Clerks worried. My noble friend Lord Avebury reminded us of the precedent of the review of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act by my noble friend Lord Carlile, and it was the continual probing by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and her attempt to get the wording right that led us to this point. So I think that congratulations should be offered all round.
	I pay special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who has carried a tremendous burden. I must say that the performance of what I would describe as the Conservative "awkward squad" throughout the passage of the Bill has been truly impressive. It makes me think that they are getting rather good at opposition.
	For some of us with even longer experience, this step is most welcome. I think that the Bill has been improved, and it is the kind of Bill that needs the awkward squad on all sides of the House because we are dealing with great powers.
	Although I do not want to interfere in any way with another place, I watched the debate in the Commons and believe that one matter needs to be given consideration—perhaps Ministers can pass this on to their colleagues. Part of the problem that we ran into was caused by the draconian guillotine at Report stage in another place. That left a huge burden of scrutiny on this House, and that is not healthy. It makes us feel very good in that we do all the work, but it is not healthy that the democratically elected House does not consider Bills with the thoroughness required. However, I think we can say that we have done so.
	This is a most welcome amendment, as was the earlier concession inspired by my noble friend Lord Lester concerning human rights matters being written on to the face of the Bill. It is a better Bill but it needs to be watched, and I think that we can now do that.

Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, forgets that one advantage of having hereditary Peers around is that they have had plenty of experience of opposition. I have had twelve and a half years myself.
	This undertaking is a gift horse and I think that it has a pretty good mouth. I shall look into it for a moment, if I may. Had the Commons agreed to our amendment, the whole of Part 2 of the Bill would have been examined. As I understood what the noble Lord explained as the Government's undertaking, a review will take place of only the powers that are used within 12 months, but one failing may be that the powers will not be used. It seems to me that the Government's use of the whole of Part 2 should be under review, and I hope that the noble Lord can reassure us that that will be the case.
	Like my noble friend, I warmly greet the appearance of a listening government on the Front Bench opposite. Together with my noble friend on the Front Bench, I thank my noble friends for their support. This has been a good example of inter-party co-operation and team support.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, but in a way we are getting more than we asked for as we are to have a proper review on which to base our debate, rather than just governmental assertions, which we would have had under our amendment. That is a great advance. It reflects the way in which the Front-Bench team have handled the Bill. When we have asked for something, and they think we should have it, they have given us a little extra on top. I am enormously grateful for that.
	I am very impressed by the way the matter has been handled, both by officials and by Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has put in a stellar performance, which has been commented on by many other Members of the House who have stayed to listen to the debates, and it has been a pleasure to be part of the process.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am flattered. Footballers use a term, but I shall not use it this evening. I am very grateful for those warm words. I believe that the House can feel good about itself on this occasion. We have done a good job. There has been effective scrutiny. I am particularly grateful for the courtesy that noble Lords have extended, not only to me, but also to my noble friend Lady Scotland, who has also undertaken a tremendous amount of work on the Bill. That spirit of co-operation has carried forward a very difficult piece of legislation that none of us feels absolutely happy about because we never want to see the circumstances in which it would be used.
	I am grateful for the support. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right: this way of looking at the legislation—it will cover the whole of Part 2—is perhaps more beneficial in its extent than the effect of the amendment that, in good cause, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, moved earlier. We have come to a happy conclusion on a difficult piece of legislation, but a piece of legislation that was in urgent need of modernisation and which in many senses we hope we shall never have to use to the fullest extent.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. In moving the Motion, I can drop a hint that the process of prorogation may be two hours away. Of course, everyone is very welcome.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 6.47 to 9.30 p.m.]

Royal Commission

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.
	Then the Lords Commissioners (being the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos), the Baroness Blatch, the Lord Donaldson of Lymington and the Baroness Williams of Crosby) being present and the Commons being at the Bar, the Lord Chancellor said: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, Her Majesty, not thinking fit personally to be present here at this time, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, and thereby given Her Royal Assent to divers Acts, the Titles whereof are particularly mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded us to declare and notify Her Royal Assent to the said several Acts, in the presence of you the Lords and Commons assembled for that purpose; and has also assigned to us and other Lords directed full power and authority in Her Majesty's name to prorogue this present Parliament. Which Commission you will now hear read. A Commission for Royal Assent and Prorogation was read.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has been now read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that Her Majesty has given Her Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned; and the Clerks are required to pass the same in the usual Form and Words.

Royal Assent

The following Acts received Royal Assent:
	Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act,
	Civil Partnership Act,
	Housing Act,
	Pensions Act,
	Civil Contingencies Act.
	The following Act, passed in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, received Royal Assent:
	Hunting Act.

Prorogation: Her Majesty's Speech

Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as follows:

The Queen: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	My Government have taken action in support of economic stability and growth, and to deliver reform of the public services, increasing opportunity and social justice.
	My Government are committed to delivering a world class education system to allow individuals to achieve their full potential. An Act has been passed to enable higher education institutions to secure the additional necessary funding and ensure fair access for all. My Government have brought forward a Bill to enable some local authorities to pilot new arrangements for school transport to extend provisions to cover more pupils.
	An Act has been passed to provide all children born from September 2002 with a child trust fund, encouraging parents and children to save and ensuring that all children have a financial asset at 18.
	Legislation has also been passed to protect pension scheme members if companies become insolvent, to encourage employers to provide good quality pensions and individuals to save effectively for retirement.
	My Government have published a draft Bill to ensure comprehensive civil rights for disabled people.
	In addition, legislation has been passed putting in place a range of measures to streamline the asylum and immigration system and tackle abuse.
	My Government continue to make the reduction of crime and the fear of crime a priority, and to enhance security and protection.
	An Act has been passed modernising the laws on domestic violence and establishing a commissioner to support the interests of victims and witnesses.
	A Children's Commissioner for England has also been established as part of legislation improving services to protect children.
	Draft legislation has also been published on establishing a national identity card scheme.
	Legislation has been passed creating a long-term foundation for civil contingency planning in the UK, improving the basis for preparations at a local level and modernising the emergency powers framework.
	An Act has been passed to ensure the fire and rescue services can respond effectively to the changing demands they face.
	Members of the House of Commons,
	I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	My Government remain committed to working closely with the political parties and the Irish Government to see an end to all forms of paramilitary activity and to restore as soon as possible a stable and inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland. An Act has been passed establishing a Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
	My Government continue to work closely with the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. Acts have been passed to retain the current number of Members in the Scottish Parliament and to establish a single public audit body for Wales. A Bill to provide the National Assembly for Wales with a range of transport-related powers has been published in draft.
	My Government continue to take forward a programme of constitutional reform.
	Legislation has been passed to improve traffic flow and manage roadworks more effectively.
	An Act has been passed to establish a Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and to promote secure and sustainable energy supplies.
	Legislation has been passed to help to create a fairer housing market and protect the most vulnerable, and to make the planning system fairer and faster with greater community participation.
	In addition, legislation has been passed implementing the Government's review of the Employment Relations Act 1999, and to improve company law by strengthening accounting, audit and inspection arrangements removing barriers to recruiting directors and creating community interest companies to enable social enterprises to meet the needs of their communities in new and innovative ways.
	My Government have brought forward draft legislation on a number of other matters including animal welfare, charities and mental health.
	Other important measures have been enacted.
	My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
	The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to pay a state visit to Nigeria in December and attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We were pleased to receive the state visit of His Excellency the President of Poland in May, and to pay a state visit to Germany earlier this month. We were also pleased to mark the centenary of the Entente Cordiale with a state visit to France in April and will receive His Excellency the President of France this week.
	My Government played an active role in preparing the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for further enlargement in March and the European Union for the accession of 10 new member states in May. They worked with other member states to conclude negotiations on a new constitutional treaty for the European Union and to strengthen peace and prosperity in Europe.
	My Government have worked for a strong partnership between Europe and the United States, and for effective action against the threat from global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. My Government were active in securing the first ever generic United Nations Security Council Resolution on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The resolution imposes obligations on all states to criminalise the possession, manufacture or trafficking of such weapons, in particular for terrorist purposes. My Government were active, with the Government of the United States of America, in working with the Libyan Government towards their renunciation of weapons of mass destruction.
	My Government have maintained the United Kingdom's commitment to enhancing stability in the Balkans and in rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq. My Government worked with the people of Iraq and the United Nations to establish the Iraqi Interim Government in June.
	In partnership with France, Germany and other partners, my Government have worked to persuade Iran to address international concerns regarding its nuclear programme. My Government supported international negotiations with North Korea, and have continued to work towards peace in the Middle East.
	My Government were active in securing a United Nations Security Council Resolution imposing obligations on the Government of Sudan to take action to end the terrible suffering in the Darfur region. My Government are the second largest bilateral donor working to improve the humanitarian situation in Darfur.
	My Government published White Papers providing a statement of defence policy, and an assessment of the capabilities the Armed Forces will require to meet the new strategic environment. Legislation has been passed giving enabling powers to bring in new pension and compensation arrangements for the Armed Forces.
	My Government have worked to reduce poverty and for the achievement of the millennium development goals. They established the Commission for Africa to focus on development and progress in Africa. In addition my Government launched an HIV and AIDS strategy for the developing world which announces the UK's commitment to spend at least £l.5 billion over the next three years.
	I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read We do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 23rd day of November, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday, the 23rd day of November instant.
	Parliament was prorogued at three minutes before ten o'clock.